A LETTER OF RESOLUTION TO SIX QUAERES, OF PRESENT USE IN THE CHURCH of England.  
BY HENRY HAMMOND D.D.  
LONDON: Printed by J. Flesher for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1653.   

A Letter of Resolution TO SIX QUAERES, Of present use in the Church of ENGLAND.  
SIR,  
SInce you have upon some consideration made choice to call for my assistance to the truth in these particulars, and expressed your sense, that the perspicuous and brief stating of them, is all that is necessary to be offered toward the resolution of them, I shall most willingly pay my obedience in the method which you have proposed to me; and being confident of your clear persuasion, that I shall say nothing to you, but what I believe myself, and of which I shall, when I am required, be able to give a competent account to a Christian gainsayer, I shall first thank you for the advantage which the order of your Quaeres hath given me toward the decision of them; The first being so necessary, and so proper to expedite the resolution of the rest, that as that hath fallen under the heaviest displeasure, to the overwhelming of the rest with the single weight of it; so the praejudices against that being once removed, the consequence will be easy and natural ( and by way of resultance) that the rest should return to the ancient liberty, which they have always enjoyed in the Church of God, free from all encounters and jealousies in the practise of them. For certainly, as in those things of which we have not sufficient advertisement from one sense, we are wont to call in the aids of the other; and when we want the more valid authentic Testimony of our own eyes, we supply that by the eyes and Testimonies of other men, and being to satisfy ourselves of things distant from us, are content to make use of such Perspectives and Otacousticks, as these,( the best in every kind, of which the matter is capable, though none of them perfect or infallible) So having all reason to resolve, that such Doctrines and practices of the Apostles times,( and so of the Jewish Church) which are not plainly set down in Scripture, are solely to be learnt from the Primitive, and most authentic Records of those times, preserved for our use by the Church of God,( as the way to interpret difficulties in ancient Authors, is by acquainting ourselves with the Histories of those times wherein they were written) there can be no reasonable demur to the Conclusion, that such, when fairly produced, are readily to be admitted, and all contrary conjectures of these later ages( how plausible and probable soever they make a shift to appear to us) profestly disclaimed and renounced in this comparison, which being once said, must be allowed to have its due weight and influence on the ensuing particulars.   

QUAERES.  

I. Of the way of Resolving Controversies, which are not clearly stated and resolved in the Scriptures, page. 1  
II. Of marrying the Wives Sister, p. 35  
III. Of Polygamy and Divorces, p. 83  
IV. Of the Baptism of Infants, p. 175  
V. Of Imposition of Hands for Ordination, p. 313  
VI. Of the Observation of Christmas-day, and other Festivities of the Church, p. 411    

OF Resolving Controversies, &c.  

The first Quaere. Concerning the way of Resolving those Controversies which are not so clearly stated and resolved in the Scriptures.  
FOr the answering of this first Quaere, I shall need but to demand this one thing,( which will, if not granted, be easily demonstrated( and the Contradictory to it appear to be little less then Blasphemy) that whatever hath been delivered by God, is equally of infallible truth: and, if a Precept of infallible obligation to those, to whom it is given, whatever hath been the method to deliver it, whether by the Dictates of Nature, or by voice from Heaven, or by Writing with the finger of God in Tables, &c. And consequently that the onely thing required to secure our faith, that it be not placed on a fallible, in stead of an infallible object, is the assurance which we have, that the thing proposed came from God, and not the particularity of the way, or sort of the conveyance.  
For the illustrating of which, it may be expedient to recount the several ways, that men have had of receiving things from God. These, beside that of the law of Nature, the Jews have reduced to four heads, the voice from heaven, the Urim and Thummim, the holy Spirit, and prophesy.  
To begin with that of the law of Nature. It is the known style of that, 
Of the Law of Nature.  to be {αβγδ} an unwritten law, put in mans heart by God at the first creation,( {αβγδ} Reason, which is by nature a law, saith Arrianus Didymus, {αβγδ}, planted in the essence of every reasonable nature, saith Hierocles on the Golden verses) and so, as the Apostle saith in another case, graved in the fleshly tables of mens hearts, not {αβγδ} in any tables of ston or wood &c. 2 Cor. 3.3. And of these I suppose there is no question, but that as it is in some measure delivered down from man to man with his very soul by traduction, so the infallibility of Gods speaking by this inarticulate voice( this {αβγδ}, as 
Lib. Pej●rem insidiari meliori.  Philo calls it, this man which dwells in every soul, and that man 
ad Agricult.  {αβγδ}, a prime commander within us, {αβγδ}, a guardian Angel, that will not permit us to be wholly ignorant of our duty, nor to transgress it without some admonition and check, nay, saith Theophilus, {αβγδ}, 
Ad Autol.  the onely God of those Atheists, which aclowledge no other Deity, and the certainty of the obligation of it upon all mankind, even upon those that have no eyes to see any other engrossing of it, nor ears to hear it proclaimed or promulgated more articulately, is as great and irrefragable, as any other written Revelation or image of Gods Will of any other kind, or of this itself, when it was afterward, in several branches, committed to Books or Tables. For if the writing of the several branches of this in the Tables of the mosaic Law, were that one Necessary, which satisfied men of the obligation to observe it; then 1. they that lived before that time of writing it, must have wanted the means of satisfaction: and 2. the obligation must have equally extended to all, that was thus written, and so to every circumstance of the Judaical Sabbath, as well as to the acknowledgement of the one God, &c. Nor can this obligatoriness be assigned by us to any former excusable writing of it in Adams or Noahs time, it being uncertain to us now, whether there were ever any such so anciently written, much more whether what was written, was, as the Tables of the Law, by the finger of God, or such as could truly pretend to his appointment: It being very probable, that what was before Moses written in that kind, was written by men on their own suggestions and choice, whether as conclusions, and deductions from the Law of Nature, or whether as transcripts of Positive Laws given to the Fathers by God, which were thus thought fit to be conserved by their posterity, but neither of these by Gods immediate appointment, or inspiration, or command for the writing of them. To which it is necessary consequent, that the obligation of such Law was praecedaneous to such writing, and did not follow it, or depend upon it.  
Next then for the first of the Jewish ways of Revelation, 
Of the voice from heaven.  the voice from heaven, styled by them {αβγδ} the daughter of a Sound, whether a Wind, or Thunder, which used to usher it in; 'tis certain that in the former ages of the world, God commonly declared his Will by this means, or, which is all one, by appearances of Angels signally and irrefragably testified to be such. Thus did he to Adam, {αβγδ}, saith Aquila, in the wind of the day, most probably in a rushing wind, as to Elias, 1 King. 19.11.& Act. 2.2. And in some like manner to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, &c. And what hath been thus spoken by God, hath been by the Writers of the Old Testament thus far only mentioned unto us, that God did thus reveal his Will to them, and speak divers things, of which onely some few, not all, are recorded by them.  
Of which notwithstanding it is 1. unquestionably true, that those that are not recorded, were as truly delivered by God, as those that are: Those that are recorded, having been delivered many years before they were recorded, and nothing differing( in respect of their coming from God) now that they are, from what they were when they were not recorded. In like manner, as of the Acts of any Emperor, it is evident, that they were as truly done by him, when there was no diary kept, nor Commentaries or Story written of them, or before either of those were actually engrossed, as now they are known to be, after the writing or engrossing of them.  
And 2. that those that were not recorded, were as obligatory to those to whom they were given, as if they had been written in Tables or Books, or engraven on Pillars, and so delivered to them. Thus 'tis evident in the instance of the forbidden fruit, a prohibition given by voice from heaven, without the help of writing or engraving, and yet obliging so severely, that all the death that hath involved Adam, and all his posterity ever since, hath been acknowledgedly the punishment of that transgression of a particular, personal, positive, unwritten Law.  
And as that Law was given to Adam personally, 
The laws to the Sons of Adam.  so the Jews with one consent tell us there were six heads of Laws given to his sons, the first {αβγδ}, Of strange Worship, or renouncing all manner of false worship: the second, {αβγδ}, Of the benediction of the Name, i.e. adoring, praying to, and praising the true God: the third, {αβγδ}, Of Judgements, erecting of Magistrates, and requiring administration of Justice: the fourth, {αβγδ}, Of disclosing Nakednesses, setting bounds to lusts, and prohibiting marriages within such degrees of propinquity: the fifth, {αβγδ}, Of shedding blood, or against homicide: the sixth, {αβγδ}, Of These or Rapine, and of doing to all, as they would be done to by others. And of these Laws it appears not to us, that they were ever given to them in writing; or if they were, that sure was onely as a memorative to preserve, not as an instrument to give an obligingness to them.  
And when beside these substantial precepts, 
And of Noah.  there was in the repeating the fifth of them( that against murder) an additional mound cast up, or hedge set, a Ceremony prescribed to Noah and his sons, on purpose to deter them from this sin, and keep them at a full distance from it: But flesh with the life thereof, i.e. the blood thereof, shall you not eat, Gen. 9.4. ( In like manner as afterwards to Abraham, 
And of Abraham.  for the fortifying them against all the assaults of the lusts of the flesh, so abominably indulged to by the corrupt world, the Ceremony of Circumcision was instituted) And this, and the six former dispersed and scattered among the heathen, so that Phocylides gives us a touch of them, {αβγδ}, Not to eat blood, and to abstain from the Idol-sacrifices, yet were none of these committed to writing in a long while after, and consequently had no part of their obligingness from Scripture.  
Thus again in the Story of Moses being with God in the mount, 'tis evident, 
The Ten Commandments.  that the Ten Commandments, Exod. 20. together with many other Precepts, c. 21, &c.( less weighty in respect of the matter of them) were together delivered by God, but at that time none of them written; and that afterwards, when the former part was graved in Tables( ten Chapters after, c. 31, 18.) and delivered to Moses in that form, to be brought down by him, and the latter also, in process of time, written by Moses in those Books which are called by his Name: yet this graving, or that writing, was but subsequent still, and so extrinsic and accidental to the delivering of them.  
And thus also in the times of the New Testament, 
The New Testament.  beside Gods speaking to Christ, and testifying of him from heaven, and the condescension and presence of that {αβγδ}, the eternal Word of God among us, we know that by word of mouth he revealed his Fathers Will unto men in long continued discourses and sermons, in occasional speeches, and answers, and parables, making them his continual task for three years or four together; none of which were, till after his Resurrection some years, set down in writing: and then so small a part of what was in all that space delivered by him, that S. John cannot express the proportion betwixt the number of the things said and done by him, which were committed to writing, and those which were not, in any calmer style, then of [ I suppose the whole world would not contain the books that would be written, Joh. 21.25.  
The second way of revealing the Will of God, 
The Urim and Thummim.  was among the Jews called {αβγδ} the Pectoral of the High-Priest, wherein, say the learned of the Jews, there were so many words written( the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve Tribes, with this addition, {αβγδ} All these are the Tribes of Israel) as contained in them all the letters of the Alphabet, and by the prominency and shining of those letters, the responses were received, and communicated to the people. And all these were certainly the responses, or Oracles of God, and are so called Rom. 3.2. though very few of them are at all communicated to posterity by writing. And for those that are( as the response to David about the men of Keilah, &c.) they continued some competent time unwritten, before they were so communicated.  
A third way there was known among them by the title of {αβγδ} the holy Spirit: 
The holy Spirit.  which is thus defined by them: that a man being awake and in his full senses, speaks and acts like another man, but the Spirit of God( Spiritus excelsus) ex●ites him, and suggests unto him words, that he shall say. According to that of S. Peter, 2 Ep. 1.20, 21. that prophesy is not {αβγδ}, of the mans own incitation, or motion,( or starting, and letting loose, as it were) but men of God spake {αβγδ}, acted, o● carried by the holy Ghost. Whereas the ordinary, secret working of the Spirit, is but illumination of the understanding, and guidance of the affections in the known ways of God, revealed to all the men of God. Prophets and the like, were extraordinarily moved and carried by this Spirit, and spake as they were thus incited by God. Answerable to this is, under the New Testament, the holy Ghost, not onely descending visibly upon the Apostles( as before on Christ) and teaching them all things belonging to their Office, but the same Spirit, by some miraculous gifts, evidencing itself in others, without that visible descent, as in those on whom {αβγδ}, The holy Ghost fell, Act. 10.44. and they spake with tongues, &c. and of whom 'tis said, that by imposition of the Apostles hands they received the holy Ghost, Act. 8.17. And certainly many things have thus been spoken by, or from the holy Ghost, which were never registered by the pen of any, and many more, which never came to our hands as such.  
Their last way was that of {αβγδ} prophesy, 
prophecy.  and that of two sorts, Joel 2.28. in time of sleep( {αβγδ}, by dream) or waking( but being cast into a trance or ecstasy) by way of vision. And many of both these sorts are not mentioned, but referred to, both in the Old and New Testament, especially that {αβγδ}, abundance of Revelations afforded to S. Paul, 2 Cor. 12.7. of which there is little more recorded to us in Scripture, then that there were such.  
Of the many matters made known to men by all these means, this one thing will be generally observable, that the books of the Old and New Testament were never meant by God to be so full and ample Registers of all facts or stories, as that in them all these should be recorded. A truth which( to omit all other ways of evidencing it) may appear by Scripture itself, there being many things intimated and referred to in Scripture, as known and acknowledged among men, which yet are no where else set down in Scripture, but where they are thus obscurely touched and intimated.  
And thus those Precepts forementioned of the Sons of Adam and Noah, which are no where so much as historically set down in the Old Testament,( save onely that of not eating of blood, Gen. 9.) are referred to, Act. 15.20. but that so obscurely, that were it not for the Traditions of the Jews,( their writings which were never in the Canon of the Scripture among them or us) we, 
The Canon of the council at Jerusa●em.  that are now so removed from those nations and times, should never know to what that reference belonged; But by comparing of this with them, and with that breviate of them in Phocylides,( which, though it name but two, abstinence from blood, and Idol-sacrifices, was an intimation, and reference to the rest of them) we have a clear view of the whole matter, and of the reason of that part of the Apostles decree in that place, if that were not too long to be here insisted on.  
So when the Author to the Hebrews mentions it as an act of faith in Moses's parents, that they hide their child, because they saw him fair, Heb. 11.23. or, as Philo, 
De vit Mos.  {αβγδ}, a greater beauty, or majesty of countenance then could belong to an ordinary person, we have reason to conclude, that there had been some Revelation,( a foundation of that faith) that a deliverer should about that time be born to them. And by S. Steven we are clearly  told, Act. 7.25. that it was early revealed to Moses himself, that he was to be that deliverer, He supposed that his brethren would( at that time) have understood, 
Moses a deliverer.  how that God by his hand would deliver them; and yet neither of these revelations is set down in the story of this matter in the Old Testament, but must be conceived to have come to S. Steven, and the Author of that Epistle, by the same, or the like Tradition, by which he knew that Moses was skilled in all the wisdom of the egyptians, 
His skill.  Act. 7.22. and that he was forty years old, at that point of the story, when he went to visit his brethren, v. 23.( which is not to be found Exod. 2. or any where else in the Old Testament, but is in the Jewish Records. See Midrasch Rabba Beresith) or by which S. Paul knew the names of the chief Magicians( not name in Exodus) to be Jannes and Jambres, 
The Magicians na●es.  2 Tim. 3.8. viz. out of the Cabala, or Tradition of the Jews( as we now find in the Chaldee Paraphrase of Jonathan, Exod. 7.11. and 1.15. that they are said to be Princes, or chief of the Magicians; and in the Talmud are called Jochanne and Mambre: and in the life of Moses, Jane and Mamre, and in Tanchuma, Jonos and Jombros) and not out of any part of Holy Writ: Or by which S. James had learnt, that it was by Elias's prayers, that the drought was brought, and continued for the space of three years and six moneths, and then removed from the land, Jam. 5.17, 18. which is not to be found in the History, any otherwise, then that there should be no rain for these years, but according to his word, 1 King. 17.1.  
So though it be certain that Baptism was instituted by Christ, 
Baptism.  and his Disciples very early appointed to receive believers or Proselytes after that manner, and consequently in John Baptist's time it is said, that Christs disciples baptized more then he, whose title it was to be the Baptist; yet is not the story of that institution set down, either at the sending out of the Disciples, Mat. 10. or elsewhere, till, at his departing from the world, the Commission is enlarged to all Nations, and the form particularly prescribed, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, Mat. 28.19. which is rather an evidence that it was before instituted, then the history of the institution. And the like might be said of Confirmation, 
Confirmation.  the practise of which we find in some places,( and the Ceremony used in it, Imposition of hands, in others) but the Institution of it we do not find in the New Testament.  
And the reason of these, whether Omissions, 
The reason why some things are not set down clear in Scripture.  or Obscurities of Intimations, is clear, and may here fitly be mentioned. before we proceed any farther. Because in those times wherein( and among those, for whose present use) the Scriptures of the New Testament were written, these things were already so exactly known in their Originals, and in all other circumstances of them, that any larger description of them was perfectly superfluous, some things being instituted in their times, other by known Records delivered, and by daily discourse or practise made familiar to them. Thus in Christs first Sermon to his Disciples, there was no necessity that he should command them the observation of those three great parts of Religion, Alms giving, Prayer, and Fasting, being all of them by Jewish Laws and Usages sufficiently known among them. And therefore when Mat. 6. he gives rules for the regulating the circumstances of these, he doth rather suppose them already practised among his Auditors, then give any Commands for the practise of them, When thou dost alms, v. 3. When ye pray, v. 7. and, When ye fast, v. 16. And then if this acknowledgedness of such particulars, was the reason of making no larger, or clearer mention of them, how unreasonable would it be from that Negative argument of their not being expressly mentioned in Scripture, to prove that they were not Instituted, or to make doubt or question of the institution of them. And whereas it may probably be replied, that the Scriptures were written for our instruction, and not onely for them in whose age they were written, the answer will be most satisfactory, that although it be with all thankfulness to God acknowledged to be so, in respect of those things which are largely set down in Scripture, and even of those, in some degree, which are not, but onely intimated and referred to there, yet that mercy of Gods is not lessened to us, but improved by the addition of this other, that for those things, which are not at large set down there( and so may usefully be explained to those, that at this distance are not able to red that darker character) the same God hath graciously provided a competent supply by those Records of Primitive and pure Antiquity, that are by the good hand of Providence happily preserved to us.  
What hath been thus instanced in Baptism and Confirmation, will on occasion of the subsequent Quaeres be farther exemplified. Mean while it is evident, that not onely the Nazaren Gospel, 
The Nazaren Gospel.  which is not admitted into the Canon, doth yet record to us many speeches of Christs, which we find not in our Gospels( as that excellent one of, Nunquam laeti sitis, nisi cum fratres in charitate videritis, that his disciples should never be merry, but when they saw the brethren live lovingly together, and some other the like, of the truth of which there is little reason to doubt, though we have no caconical Writer to testify them) but even the Gospels themselves record each of them many things( but especially that of S. John) which are not set down by the rest, and is more to our present purpose) S. Paul sets down in the Acts a speech used by Christ, when he was here on earth( viz. that It is more blessed to give, then to receive) which in none of the four stories of Christ had been recorded, and probably had been lost, certainly had not come to us on such Authority Apostolical, had not S. Paul incidentally made use of it, and accommodated it to his purpose.  
So Christs tears upon the across 
Christs tears on the across.  are by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinctly mentioned, Heb. 5.7. and by their conjunction with the strong cries,( or his crying with a loud voice, Mat. 27.50. Mar. 15.37. Luk. 23.26.) determined to the particular time, in which they were  shed, viz: when he delivered those words [ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.] And yet in all the four Gospels there is no mention of them.  
So the appearance of Christ to S. James 
Christ appearance to James.  after his resurrection, being not mentioned by the Evangelists, is yet related by S. Paul, 1 Cor. 15.7. And although to the work of his conversion, and the Gospel which he was appointed to preach, and the Commission which he had thereto, he truly affirmeth, that he neither received it, nor was taught it by man, Gal. 1.12. yet there is no reason to doubt, but that such particulars as these, might be communicated to him by them which had knowledge of them, and not be parts of Christs immediate Revelations to him.  
So again of the Apostles, 
The Apostles.  whose preachings, and doctrines, and institutions are so owned by Christ himself( by the Commission he gave them, Joh. 20.21. and by the Spirit he promised them, which should led them into all truth, and by his interpreting mens hearing and receiving of them, to be the hearing and receiving of Christ himself) that what is truly Apostolical, is immediately, and by necessary consequence, divine and infallible also, these things will, to this present purpose, be observable, 1. That there is no authentic or caconical Record of their 
Their Preachings.  journeyings, and practices, and institutions, and words,( excepting those passages which of S. Paul are incidentally mentioned in his Epistles) but what the story of the Acts hath furnished us with: which also is chiefly spent on S. Pauls( and that onely on the former part of his) Apostolacy, reaching no farther then his first coming to Rome( and for that which is said of S. Peter, 'tis far from being the thousandth part of what is reasonable to suppose of so zealous an Apostle, in the space of so many years, as he survived Christ.) 2. That it cannot be imagined, but that the other eleven Apostles which took their several provinces, and planted the faith by themselves, or their proxies, over all the world, did or spake many things, of which there is no account to be expected; but what must be received from other Writings then those which are taken in by the Church to the Canon of Scripture.  
And for the Epistles, 
Their Epistles.  3. That 'tis evident that most of S. Pauls( all but that to the Romans, Ro. 1.10, 11, 13. and c. 15.22, 23. and that to the Colossians, Col. 2.1.) suppose the whole Church or Churches( for the most part, the whole province, consisting of many Episcopal Sees) to which they were written, to have been formerly planted by him, and after that plantation, false teachers and heretics to have crept in, which generally occasioned his second journeys; and, in the mean while to supply that defect, his monitory Epistles to them.  
4. That before all this could be done, 'tis necessary many things should be said and done by that Apostle, which will amount to a far larger series of story in each of those Churches; then the Book of his Acts( or rather of his sufferings) in all those Churches, sets down in all of them. And as those Epistles relate to many other passages of story, for which we have no other evidence from Scripture, but those obscure references, so is it necessary we should borrow from other Writings the fuller understanding of those intimations, or el●e remain in some degree ignorant of them.  
One thing it will not be amiss here to add, in stead of many, that although we find by many passages in the Epistles, that there was a form of sound words, 
Form of sound words  a number of special doctrines, which were by all the Apostles consent to be maintained and preached in all their journeyings and plantations, {αβγδ}, one faith or summary of things to be believed, Eph. 4.5. {αβγδ}, the faith once, or at once, or altogether( or, as the {αβγδ} may signify {αβγδ}, at first) delivered to the Saints, judas 3. {αβγδ}, a short breviary of wholesome words, or orthodox doctrine, 2 Tim. 1.13. {αβγδ}, a good depositum, or trust, delivered by the Apostles to others, v. 14. and in like manner a Rule for rites and practices more extrinsical, institutions and ordinances, the same in all Churches( though in some few things of lower nature, according to the different tempers of the places, some variety be observable:) Yet what all these doctrines, or these customs were, is no where set down, either in the story of the Acts, or in any of the Epistles, save onely as they lie dispersed in several corners, and from the preachings of the Apostles by the Records of the first times( which never pretended to be inspired) are put together and interpnted to us. In which respect it is, that the pure and Primitive Church of Ephesus( and, by analogy with that, any other particular Church, and all succeeding ages of it, as far as they adhere to, and accord with that) is styled the pillar and basis of truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. i. e.( by the figure {αβγδ}) a pillar firmly set upon its basis( such as customarily their houses were built on, Jud. 16.26.) and the truth of the Gospel( deposited by the Apostles, and kept in each Church by the fidelity of the Bishops there, Timothy, &c.) said to be held up firmly by this pillar, supported and sustained by it.  
Having thus far touched on some few of the many evidences, which are ready to demonstrate and testify this truth, that God hath done and spoken by himself, by his Prophets and Apostles, many things in all times which are not, nor can be supposed to be at large set down in the Scriptures either of the Old or New Testament, that which is behind will be easily reducible to these three Propositions.  
First, that the Authority of the Canon of Scripture, 
The first Proposition  or the first ground of believing it to contain( what with all reverence it is by all Christians most justly believed to do) the word and will of God, 
Of  is taken from the authentic testimony of the Christian Church of the first ages, 
the Authority of the Canon of Scripture.  and not from any other ways of probation( one or more) abstracted from this, or not superstructed on it. Two parts there are of this Proposition, an Affirmative and a Negative.  
First, I say, the Canon of Scripture is taken from the Authority and Testimony of the Church: 
Proved in both parts, the Affirmative,  And if there were any need of confirming this, this one argument ad homines were sufficient, That the Canon of Scriptures, as it now stands in all the Reformed Churches, and as they differ from the Romanists in the assigning of the Books caconical and Apocryphal, was certainly agreed on by the Governors of the several Churches at the Reformation, not from any other more particular reason or motive, but from the affirmations of the Ancients, that these, which we now call caconical books, were, as such, delivered them down by their Fathers; and that the Apocryphal, with some note of distinction, were in like manner transmitted by them, as useful to be red in the Church, and so placed not among Divine, but Ecclesiastical Writings. The words of S. Jerom and of Ruffinus, are ordinarily known to this purpose, of the one, Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt: and, Haec nobis à Patribus tradita, These are the writings which the Fathers have concluded within the Canon, these are delivered to us by the Fathers. And then a Catalogue set down exactly concordant to what the Reformed Churches uniformly receive at this day. And of the other, Hos quidem Ecclesia legit, said inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit, These the Church reads, but receives not among caconical, and alii non Canonici, said Ecclesiastici à majoribus appellati sunt, Others have been called by our ancestors Ecclesiastical, not caconical, adding an enumeration of all those, which we call Apocryphal. And this is so evidently the way of determining, used by the Reformed Churches, that it is not imaginable, to what other motive it can be imputed, that we all have pitched exactly on the same Canon. And truly if the Testimony of the Church( or Bishops of Asia, I suppose, upon whose entreaty Eusebius tells us, he wrote his Gospel) annexed to the Gospel of S. John[ We know that his testimony is true] was of so much authority, as to be thought meet to have a place in the holy Canon, Joh. 21.24. we shall have little reason to envy the whole Primitive Church of Christ that honour, and dignity of being the Conservatory of our Records in this matter.  
Secondly, as the Canon is confessedly received from this authentic Testimony of the Christian Church, so it is not, 
The Negative.  nor can it be imagined to be taken from any other way of probation.  
Not from the private spirit, 
1. Not from the private spirit.  from any persuasion in, or of mine own breast, giving me that assurance of it: For that being confined personally to me, or the like, cannot be supposed of so much validity, as the more universal spirit, and the persuasion and testification of the whole Church. This being so much a weaker, as it is a more particular way of probation: And such as it is, it cannot miss being confuted, as soon as ever it is produced. The spirit of the illiterate, though pious man, being no more able to give that testimony of any verse of Scripture in the original, when it were red to him, then of any period in any heathen Greek, or arabic Author; nor the spirit of the most learned able to distinguish betwixt the latter part of the twelfth verse of the first chapter to Titus, and what was dictated by the spirit of a man, a verse in Epimenides a Greek Poet. And for the whole Canon, as such, it is evident that the leaving out any integral part of that, or taking in any other part, is the changing of the whole, and consequently, that if every mans spirit be left the onely judge, every single person in thus judging, may differ from every other,( for what some men have done, it is sure that all men may) and so by this way of proceeding, there may be as many Canons of Scripture, infinitely multipliable, as there be, or shall be Christians to constitute them: which is an absurdity as gross, as can reasonably be fallen upon. And if all these inconveniences did not lie against this pretention, yet it is most certain, that the spirit of a private man is to judge for none but himself( for, Who hath constituted him a judge or distributor?) and consequently that the spirit of such an one can never judge of a Canon or Rule, which being such, is to regulate others, to impose Laws universally on all Christians, and not one particular onely.  
Nor 2. from the judgement of reason, or rational discourse, 
2. Not from reason, or rational discourse.  from the style, &c. because though it be most reasonahle to believe whatever appears to be affirmed by God, yet Reason is no judge whether God have affirmed such a thing or no, any otherwise then by concluding it from testimonies, that affirm he hath affirmed it. For as to the subject matter of Scripture, there are many things there, which are but historical narrations, genealogies, &c. and cannot by help of reason be discriminated from the same, described by any human pen: many things again which are above reason, the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Resurrection, &c. the faith of which must come by hearing, and not by reasoning: and many things again, of which there is no other reason to be given, but the will of God, which could not have been known to be his will, had they not been revealed to be so. And on the contrary, many things are highly reasonable, which yet are not the word of God. The Pythagoreans golden verses are, almost all of them, eminently so, and Epictetus, and Arrian, and Hierocles, and Seneca, are most full of sublime and divine reason: and those writings of Orthodox Christians, which have transcribed several truths from that great Original, are yet no part of that Canon.  
Nay, nor 3. from the undoubted inspiredness of the Apostles 
3. Not from the inspiredness of the Apostles.  of Christ, and the promise, That the Spirit, when it came upon them, should led them into all truth. For that, though it be, in thesi, a most acknowledged truth, yet being applied to this matter, is the begging of the question, and supposes these to be the writings of those inspired persons, which it should prove to be so.  
All which being thus inferred, and supposed, is yet as far from subjecting this discourse to that ( sacrilegious) blame of raising the authority of the Church above the Scriptures, as the designation of John Baptist to his office of {αβγδ}, to proclaim, or give testimony to Christ, can be thought to have elevated, and dignified him above the messiah, whose shoe-latchet he professeth himself unworthy to unloose: Or as the lowly, but useful ministry of a disciple, can be deemed a pretention to( or usurpation of) superiority over the Master. A distance which cannot be rightly measured, but by that of one extreme or contrary from another.  
Secondly, that the accepting of so great a thing, 
The second Proposition.  as is the Canon of Scripture, primarily and fundamentally from this testimony of the ancient Church, and onely secondarily( and subordinately to that) from the inward characters of Divinity observable in it, is a very great presumption, and acknowledgement of the force of the argument drawn from the universal testimony of the first and purest ages of the Church. And consequently that as any thing which should appear to us to have been delivered from the Apostles of Christ, by the same or equal evidences, by which we aclowledge and receive the Canon of Scripture, could not with any reason be disbeleived, or without impiety be rejected by us: so whatsoever is testified to come from the same fountain, by those evidences which approach nearest to those on which we receive the Canon of Scripture, that( supposing the Scripture to define nothing in it) is in all reason to be believed before the contrary, which is either testified by a less competent authority, or undertaken to be proved but by probable arguments.  
From which Premises the least which, in the third place, can be concluded, 
The third propositi●n, or the Co●clusion.  is this, That whatsoever hath the concordant attestation of the Christian Church of the first ages( the Scripture remaining obscure, or silent in the matter) that it was the doctrine or practise Apostolical, there remains not to any that now lives( thus remote from those fountains of story, and onely repositories of such truths) any imaginable ground of sober or prudent doubting, or questioning the truth of it. It being 1. evident to any mans sight, That this is a question merely of fact, whether such a doctrine were taught, or practise taken up by the Apostles, or no: and 2. the rule being undeniable, that, in such matters, 
Judges of ●atte●s of fact.  no probable reason, one or more, no collection, or conspiration of such( be it never so lucky) is in any degree competent, or considerable against that one argument, taken from testimony of those, who cannot be imagined ignorant, nor presumed to have conspired to the deceiving of us: It being certain, that nothing is ever done, but 'tis possible any one of an hundred things else might have been then done in stead of it,( the action still depending on the then free choice of the agent, and not at all dictated to him by my present way of reasoning) and the addition or application of probable reasons to a possible event, being merely the work of a good invention first, and then of prudence, and dexterity of contrivance, that what is feigned, may not betray, and confute itself. And then seeing it is affirmed by God himself, that his ways are unlike ours, his methods of wise disposal most contrary to those which our passions, or interests, or prejudices would( if taken into consultation) have suggested to him, the conclusion must be, That our way of judging Gods positive acts, doctrines or institutions, by what seems in itself probable to us, must needs be of all others the most fallacious and improbable; and consequently that the surest means of interpreting such obscurities of Scriptures, of deciding such Controversies as these, which are not interpretable, 
Testimony of the first times.  and decideable by plain verdict of the Scripture itself, is the testimony of those Writers of the first times, which have set down more clearly, what is but obscurely( in passing, and without occasion of adding more) intimated or touched in the Scripture, or which record the doctrine or practise of the Apostles, which is not there recorded.  
To which purpose it is observable, that there being two sorts of Doctors among the Jews, the one of the Talmudists, who profess to mustard-seed the traditions of men, to the commands of God in Scripture, Mat. 15.9. the other the Karaeans, or Scripturarians; which explicate the Law according to the literal sense, {αβγδ} without any addition to it; yet, according to their own confession, three things they make use of in inte●preting or deciding any controversy, {αβγδ}, the Scripture itself, Argumentation or Consequence from Scripture, and the transmission or delivering down of interpretations. So wide a difference is there between traditions of men, and Tradition, or transmission of Interpretations from the Authors of the Scripture themselves, or those that lived next them, and best understood their meaning, that they which kept closest to Scripture, and were most distant from the former, thought it fit and necessary to make use of the la●ter of them.  
What hath been thus far said, must be taken with this caution, that it be not extended any farther then( to what it is in the premises distinctly applied) to the testimonies of the Primitive Ancients, 
Caution.  and again to an accordance of those testimonies( without any considerable opposition) that this or that was delivered from the Apostles.  
For otherwise, as in matter of doctrine, the bare affirmations& opinions of ancient writers, 
Bare affirmations or opinions of Ancients.  are but the affirmations& opinions of men, and others as ancient( if there be no sure ground of judging) may be, and oft are of contrary opinions, as in the doctrine of the Millennium might be instanced at large, 
The Millennaries.  where Justin Martyr, the prime assertor of it, confesses other Christians of pure and pious intentions to be otherwise minded,( Cont. Tryph. p. 306.) so it is very ordinary for such opinions of some few to be taken up successively by others, as that of the Millennium was from Papias by Irenaeus, &c. which is but an argument that those others approved what they thus took up, and no farther confirmation of the truth of it.  
And so likewise for testimonies in matters of fact, 
Singular testimonies in matters of fact.  if, being but human, they be also later, or but singular testimonies, and those either actually contradicted by others, of equal authority with them, or else the force and concludency of them evacuated by comparing some greater autho●ities, it will be a very infirm argument that is drawn from such testimonies, and that which will receive but little validity from the credulity of some one or two others, which have delivered them down from such testimonies. 
Papias, of Christs age.  As when Irenaeus from Papias, and Papias from the pretended testimony of the Elders before him, that saw the Apostles, affirms Christ to have been near fifty years old, when he was put to death, the writings of the Evangelists, though they affirm not the contrary in terminis, nay are made use of for the founding the mistake, Joh. 8.57. do yet afford evidences to disprove, and those far more considerable, then the testimony of one Papias to confirm the contrary to have been the tradition of the Apostles.  
What hath been said, might now at large be exemplified in all the particulars, 
Two Deductions of use, for particular persons.  which either the Socinians, or other heretics and schismatics have of late pretended, contrary to the doctrine or practise of the first ages of the Universal Church, upon this one presumption of preferring their own reason, or private spirit( which is but another name to signify the same thing) before the concordant testimonies of those times( which are most competent for matters of fact) and the more universal reason, and public spirit of the whole Church of the purest ages: which is a thing in itself most contrary to their fundamental pretention, i.e. excessively unreasonable.  
And from hence also might be deduced those rules of Christian Piety and Paternal Duty, 
For the Church itself.  which the whole body of the Christian Church of these later ages, but especially each particular branch of it might prudently transcribe, and accommodate to present uses; That peculiarly of Gravity, and Temper, and Waryness, not to multiply Articles of Faith, or Canons for Censures, or Dogmatical Determinations, above what the ancient Church of the first ages, which was nearest the spring-head, and most likely to know the Apostles mind, did also think meet to determine: There being no earthly Providence so likely to secure the Obedience of children, as that of the Parents not provoking them, and the difference being not great( and the danger equal) whether that be done by too great severity of punishments, or levity of commands, the one abating the Love, the other the Reverence due to the Parent, and either of those wants much weakening the band of Obedience, on which all Religion so eminently depends, but both of them together( considered with the imperfectness of that work, which the Precepts and Profession of Christianity have as yet produced on the hearts of men, through the world) being almost ascertained to tempt that petulancy, and encourage that contumacy, which unarmed Laws will not be sufficient to check.  
But these are so large fields, and so far extended beyond the bounds of my present design or task, 
The Conclusion.  that I shall rather content myself at this time with the contemplation of the Usefulness, and Propriety of these Premises to the superstructures, which the following Quaeres have squared out, and fitted for them, and therefore immediately proceed unto them.   

The second Quaere. Of marrying the Wives Sister.  
IN the next place therefore, if it be questioned, by what law of God it can be defined unlawful for a Christian to mary his deceased wives sister, I shall offer you my resolution by these degrees:  
1. That by the law of God given to the Jews, as it is now recorded, 
Prohibition of marrying the brothers wife.  Lev. 18. this Prohibition is distinctly found, v. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife, it is thy brothers nakedness. Where by the Positive Law of God, given there to that people, it is apparent, That as there is a restraint prescribed, and from that, some boundaries by law cast up against unbridled lust, not permitting to mary those that are near of kin, and that extended to the kindred of his wife, as well as the mans own kindred, upon that ground of Scripture, that the man and his wife are one flesh, one body, and, in reputation of law, one person, Lev. 18.8, 14. So this is distinctly applied to the prohibiting the marriage of the brothers wife, v. 16. And for this there need not any farther proof be brought, then that Text, nor inquiry be made of the reason of Gods doing so, then this will of his, that being reason sufficient to those to whom his Prohibition is given, till it be by him freely superseded or suspended again.  
But because it is reasonably to be expected, 
The right of kindred▪  that every man that reads this Prohibition so express, will also remember the right of kindred so known among the Jews, and derived from the will of this sovereign Law-giver, that in case the eldest brother die childeless, his next brother hath liberty, and some kind of obligation lying on him, Deut: 25.5. to take the relict to wife, and raise up seed to his elder brother: It will, before we proceed one step farther, be necessary to the explaining and leveling of our passage, to give a brief account of this antinomie; and that not by interpreting the notion of the word Brother in Deuteronomy, of[ the nearest of kin, without the prohibited degrees]( as hath been by some frivolously pretended) but by consideration of the absolute dominion of God, and consequently of his free power, as of making, so of abrogating totally, or( as far as he pleases) suspending the obligation of all Positive Laws, of what so●t soever they are.  
For though some difference be ordinarily made betwixt Positive Laws given by God to one particular nation, 
Dispensableness of Positive Laws.  and those that are given to all mankind, and again betwixt Judicial and Ceremonial; yet 'tis both evident, That those that are given to all, may, by some subsequent act, be abrogated or evacuated to some onely, either in universum, or in some singular case, and that as fitly, as if they had peculiarly been given to those, and to none else; and that those that concern civil life, may, if God please, be as reasonably abrogated, as those that are ceremonies of our devotions. And again, that though the typicalness of some of those ceremonies, 
Ceremonial or Judicial.  may be a more prevalent reason with God to abolish those ceremonies, when the substance is come, which the ceremonies were set to fore-shadow, then we can perhaps imagine for the abrogating of other ceremonies, which are not typical; or of judicial Laws, which are not pretended to be so: Yet still that is but the reason which moves God to abrogate the one, and not the other, and is not of any force to take away the obligingness of the one, more then of the other, till they are thus abrogated by the Law-giver. And consequently the whole weight of this matter is wholly to be laid upon the will of God, to continue, or voided the obligation, either to all, or to whom he please. And so there is nothing strange in this, that for the preserving the name and family of the dead childeless brother,( in a nation, whose genealogies were with such a Religious care to be observed, and transferred to posterity) that God, which gave the Prohibition, Lev. 18. should soon after give the contrary directions in one case among the same Jews, without taking off the Prohition in all other cases.  
Thus upon that great reason of propagating mankind at the beginning of the world, 
Marriage of brothers& sisters.  the marriage of Brethren and Sisters was allowed by God, and so that law, which prohibited incestuous conjunctions, if it were given( as it is not certain it was) to Adam himself, or to his sons, before they had any children▪ was to give place to that present necessity,( as Positive Laws are wont to do) and so as soon as made, dispensed with, being not to take force, say the Hebrews, till mankind was sufficiently multiplied.  
And to this purpose it is an ordinary distinction among the Schoolmen, from Thomas Aquinas, that the Law of Nature 
Law of Nature.  is of two sorts, 
The Law of eternal 

Reason,  
Creation.    Lex aeternae rationis, The Law of eternal Reason, and Lex aeternae creationis, The Law of eternal Creation: The former of which is said to be indispensible, the latter dispensable. This tinkling distinction, like many other that come out of the same mint, is not, in my opinion, reconcilable with the rules of Art. For Reason being the nature of man, and the Law of Nature signifying( no doubt) the Law of human, not Animal, or Sensitive nature, the Law of Nature, and the Law of eternal Reason must needs be phrases of the same importance and latitude, and so one cannot duly be a species of the other. And for the Law of eternal Creation, if that be contradistinguished to the Law of Reason, it must needs denote a Positive Law given by God to Adam, and all his posterity; and if so, it cannot be a species of the Law of Nature, but of Lex Positiva, Positive Law in general, as that contains both that which is given to all, and that which is designed onely to some part of mankind.  
But this impropriety of expression being passed by, which onely renders the distinction in artificial, not useless, there is certainly so much of truth in that which is defined by the Schools, as will suffice to clear this matter, viz: that though the Law of Nature and Reason be acknowledged to be designed by God to oblige all men, of all times, in all cases, and so in his decree to be indispensible; yet of any other sort of Laws, even those that are given to mankind at the first Creation, this will not be affirmable.  
That the Law of Nature is eternally obliging and indispensible, 
The indispensablenes of the Law of Nature.  seemeth to arise 1. from the constitution of mans Soul, because what is the dictate of Reason, is of the nature of every man, as man, i.e. as he was at first created after Gods image( in conformity to which, goodness doth consist) and the contrary of that must needs be contrary to that image of God, and to that goodness which is in him eternally; and, unless the Soul of man be changed, must necessary be resisted by natural conscience, that inarticulate voice of God, and manifestation of that to man, which is eternally in God. And 2. from the propriety of the matter of these Laws of Reason or Nature, which is essentially good, and consequently the transgression of the Laws, which enact it, is evil, antecedently to their being enacted: these being therefore enacted because they are good, whereas all other are good, and the transgression of them evil, on no other score, but because they are commanded.  
Thus the shedding of innocent blood 
Shedding of innocent blood.  was evil, and so looked upon, and adjudged by God in Cain, and by his own conscience condemned as criminous and punishable; before any Law was by God or Adam promulgate to the contrary. And although God( before whom 1. no man is so innocent, 
Abrahams sacrifice of h●s son.  but that by the sentence pronounced against Adams sin, he is justly liable to the common fate of mortality; and who 2. is the donor of life, and may therefore take it away, when, and by what means he pleaseth, by the Fathers knife, as well as by a fever) may therefore fitly command Abraham to sacrifice his onely son Isaac, and then the doing it in obedience to that command of Gods, is not the act of Abraham, but of God; yet for any man, without this special commission from God, to do the like, is, and was eternally evil, and therefore was afterwards prohibited. Thus Piety, 
Piety and Charity eternally good.  Charity, Meekness, Peaceableness are, and eternally have been good, even before any man was ever exhorted to follow them, and have therefore been in time severally commanded by the Father, and Christ, because they were always good. Nor will, nor can there ever be a time, wherein any, or all of these shall be as displeasing to God, as the contraries of them have hitherto always been. It may most truly be said, that God cannot enact a Law, whereby those vices shall be authorised, Malice, Hatred, Cruelty, &c. and the contrary virtues prohibited.  
And accordingly this hath been acknowledged even by heathens themselves, and distinctly affirmed by Cicero, 
Cicero's opinion herein.  de legib. l. 1. wherein having premised, that nothing is to be counted good, but what is laudable of itself, i.e. may be commended of its own accord( nihil in bonis numerandum, nisi quod per seipsum sit laudabile, id est, sponte suâ posset laudari) he adds, that that which is so, is before and without any precept, good and laudable( quod autem laudabile sponte suâ, illud ante& sine praecepto bonum& laudabile.) And the truth of this is supposed by all Christians, when they assign the difference of the Ceremonial from the Moral Law, or the reason why the one is perpetually observed, but not the other.  
But then these reasons notwithstanding, which are peculiar to the Law of Nature, It will be affirmable of all other, i.e. of every Positive Law( whether given to all men, or onely to one Nation of men, or whether given with an actual reservation of some cases, wherein it should not oblige,( as the Sabbatick Rest, in cases of necessity and mercy, and for the services of the Temple, 
Positive laws dispensable, why?  Mat. 12.5.) or indefinitely without any explicit or implicit reservation) that it is freely dispensable and alterable by God, 1. Because God is supposed to give this to man after his creation( who was therefore man, before he received it) and so this is but accidental and adventitious to him, and utterly extrinsical to his nature, not implanted in him, or made a piece of his constitution, nor consequently such as, without altering his fabric, may not be altered, as in the Law of Nature was supposed. 2. Because this being not eternally good, but receiving the goodness from Gods command, and consequently that command being given in time, God may also give it for what term he pleaseth, either to last always, or to cease when he sees fit, and consequently whensoever he dispenses with it to any particular man or men, that is a time wherein it ceaseth to oblige him or them; and whensoever, by any other way of revealing his Will, he suspends or abolishes that Law to all, it again ceaseth to oblige any, and having the beginning from his positive Will, it determines upon any contrary act of that.  
All which is directly applicable to the case in hand: 
Difference between 〈…〉 unnatural sins and Incests.  For when all those acts which are contrary to the natural use of men and women, Rom. 1.26, 27. are to all the world( antecedently to any Positive Command) universally and indispensably unlawful, and accordingly are called dishonourable affections, v. 24. and elsewhere, not to be name, and abominable and detestable, yet these incestuous conjunctions being forbidden by positive Law to mankind, are by God, that prohibited them, dispensable, and appear sometimes actually to have been dispensed with, some to the children of Adam, this of marrying the brothers wife, to the Jews. Which laws notwithstanding being not in universum repealed, or as far as concerned mankind in general, but farther confirmed either by the Law of Moses or of Christ, have since that continued obligatory to all, to whom they were not actually dispensed with; and consequently are to us Christians now in the same force, that among all the nations of the world they always were, i.e. as truly( though not in the same kind) obligatory to us Christians, as the Law of Nature is in all other things; because, though they were always capable of being dispensed with by the Law-giver, as the Law of Nature, in the respects forementioned, is not, yet these have not to us been actually dispensed with, but by stricter precepts of Christ confirmed upon us.  
Having therefore cleared the Proh●bition of marrying the brothers wife from that one prejudice, It will now ex abundanti be observable, That however this were afterward dispensed with to the Jews, 
The law of not marrying the brothers w fe, farther considered.  yet 1. when it was given them, Lev. 18.16. it was given as absolutely as any other of the Prohibitions in that Chapter; particularly, as that of taking the fathers wife, which is acknowledged most incestuous. 2. It was enforced with this reason [ It is thy brothers nakedness] i. e. by being thy brothers wife, she and thy brother are so perfectly one flesh, 
Conjugal unity the ground of Affinities.  that thou mayst no more mary her, then a sister may mary a brother. The Laws of Consanguinity, which forbade a woman to be married to her Father, or Uncle, or Brother, were on this reason( of the strict union caused by marriage) proportionably enlarged to affinities also, to the forbidding the marriage of the Father's, and Uncle's, and Brother's wife. And 3. the reason of all this is clear also: For the principal ground, which appears, 
Propinquity the onely ground of the interdicts.  of all these interdicts, is the nearness of kin,( and accordingly those are the words of the general interdict, v. 6. under which all the specials are comprehended, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him) and not any other consideration: Not that of Reverence; 
Not Reverence.  for 1. that is due onely to Parents, and those that some way partake of that relation in the ascending lines: and yet the father's marrying the daughter or niece, those of the descending, to whom he owes no reverence, is the same foul Incest with the former, and still where on one side paternal reverence is due, on the other side it is not due: And 2. the reverence due from the child to the parent, being in a more eminent manner due from the Subject to the Prince, yet because there is not the relation of Propinquity, as well as obligation to reverence, the marriage of a Subject to a Prince is not under any interdict. And 3. the state of the wife being a state of subjection, and so of performing of reverence, this would be a propriety for( of more weight and consequence, then any objection against) the daughters being married to the father, if the reverence were the onely considerable. The reverence, I conceive, which is spoken of in this matter, is the fear of approaching those that are near of kin, whom, on that score, and not because of the reverence, God hath forbidden us to approach. And accordingly the marriage of the superior to the inferior, the sons daughter, &c. v. 10. is forbidden on this reason, for theirs is thine own nakedness, the children, to the end of the world, coming from the parents loins, and so being part of the parent, and so that a proof of the great nearness,( because every one is nearest to himself.) And so still the Propinquity is the bar, and not onely or principally the reverence. From all which it follows, that seeing the wife of the father and of the uncle are acknowledgedly interdicted by that Law, the wife of the brother( who, if he be not as near as the father, is certainly nearer then the uncle, the fathers brother) is in reason deemed to be forbidden also, and accordingly is by the express words of that Law, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife.  
This therefore being thus confirmed and cleared to have been a Law given to the Jews, and that standing in force, till it was to them, as a Positive Law, dispensed with( and then the contrary either permitted or commanded for a determinate end, the preserving the name and family of the elder brother) It now follows by laws of unavoidable consequence, 1. 
Marrying of the wives sister forbidden by the Jewish Law.  That the marrying the wives sister, was to those Jews forbidden also, and that 2. not superseded afterwards by that countermand in Deuteronomy. I shall briefly evidence these two parts of this consequence.  
The first of these appears by the parity of reason. And the Jews have resolved in this matter, even those of them( the Karaeans or Scripturarians) that bind themselves most to the Scripture rule, 1. That there is place for argumentation and deduction from the words of the law; and 2. that whatsoever can be deduced thence either à fortiori, or à pari, either because the remoter degree is prohibited, 
Prohibitions à pari.  or that which is equally remote, is to be deemed piously and rightly concluded. Thus when v. 7. the Father and Mother are both name; and v. 12. the fathers sister, and v. 13. the mothers sister, and v. 14. the fathers brother, yet the mothers brother is not name, nor the sisters daughter, which would be equivalent with that. And yet this being the marriage of the uncle on the mothers side, with the niece, which is of the same distance, with the uncle of the fathers side, with the niece, and the Aunt on the mothers side, with the nephew, from the naming and prohibition of these, v. 13. and 14. by the parity of reason, that which is not name is by all resolved to be prohibited.  
And just thus is it in this matter: This of the wives sister which is not name, 
The wives sister is as near as the brothers wife.  being directly the same degree of Propinquity, that the brothers wife, which is name and prohibited. And that will appear by either of the two ways of measuring the Propinquity, the wives sister being as near to the husband, as the husbands brother is to the wife, and the sisters husband as near to the other sister, as the brothers wife can be to the other brother. And accordingly the Scripturarian Jews, as well as the rest, do here resolve, That a man is forbidden to mary {αβγδ} two, which are kin to one another, and specify in a woman and her sister.  
And if by the English reading of our Bibles, 
Objection from Lev. 18.18.  Lev. 18.18. [ Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time,] it be thought that the marrying the wives sister, in her life time, be the onely thing forbidden, and consequently that to mary her after the wives death, is not forbidden, that will be presently answered from the margin of our Translation, where the Hebrew[ {αβγδ}, {αβγδ}] is fitly and truly rendered, not [ a wife to her sister] but [ one wife to another] and so is a direct prohibition of Polygamy, at least, when the first wife is deprived and vexed by the taking in of the second,( as shall appear in the discourse of Polygamy,§. 7.) but not a permission to mary any that was otherwise prohibited. And that that is the meaning of the place, may be first more generally concluded from the variation of the style in this, from the former verses. The former interdicts had been given upon the reason of Propinquity, and accordingly that reason distinctly mentioned, first in general, v. 6. and then pursued in all needful particulars of it, to the end of v. 17. But the interdict here is upon a new reason, that of vexing, which is an evidence, that the first sort of interdicts( continued for twelve persons) is now quiter finished, and that another head is begun against more wives then one: and accordingly upon that ensue also divers other new and particular Commands, to the end of the Chapter. Secondly, this will be concluded also from the nature and particular propriety of this reason( here annexed) to that of Polygamy, viz. that of vexing, {αβγδ}, to weary, or provoke, or exasperate her, for which the Septuagint read {αβγδ}, one that may raise, or inflame her rage or jealousy. For as that is not to be feared, but in the life time of the former wife, so as long as she is living, it will be caused by any prosperous rival or competitor, by admission of any stranger into an higher degree of favour, and not onely, or peculiarly of the wives sister. jealousy we know is not wont to be confined within bounds or limits, but is equally and impartially common to any person, which is injuriously preferred in her life time, and thereby provokes her grief, or her rage, is matter of vexation to her. For prevention of which it was, that the Divorces were recommended in Malachi, as a more tolerable unkindeness, as will also appear in the discourse 
§. 13.& 15.  of Divorce, by the view of that place.  
And thus again the Karaei or Scripturarians( opposed to the Talmudists or Traditionals) interpret this place, 
The Karaeans interprettaion of the place.  that 'twas here forbidden to have two wives at the same time: and they render a most satisfactory account for the seeming difficulty of the expression: because, say they, the word Sister in Hebrew, referring to somewhat that is precedent, signifies any other thing of the same kind. So Ezek. 16.48. 
Brother and sister taken by the Hebrews for Another.  [ Sodom thy sister] is, Sodom, guilty of the same sins that Israel was, as appears v. 49. Behold this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, &c. and so v. 45. Thou art the sister of thy sisters, i.e. just such another as they, sodom and Samaria, were. And it is an ordinary Hebrew figure thus to express parity, or likenesses. So Ex. 32.27. Slay every man his brother, is to be interpnted, Every man another; and accordingly when the sons of Levi obeyed that command v. 28. the conclusion was, that there fell of the people that day( not of the Levites peculiarly) about three thousand men. So Isa. 19.2. I will set the egyptians against the egyptians, and they shall fight every one against his brother, i.e. one against another. And this is so ordinary an Hebraism, that 'tis usual when the Hebrew reads brother, for the English to render it [ another] Gen. 37.19. They said one to his brother, we read fitly, one to another, though they were brethren that are there spoken of; and so Gen. 42.21. And where the speech is not of brethren, yet the phrase is so. Exod. 10.23. They saw not one his brother; and Exod. 16.15. They said one to his brother; and Isa. 3.5. The people shall be oppressed every one by his brother. And Exod. 16.3. it is used of things( of curtains) not onely of persons. And in all these places we read( as the phrase signifies, not as the words literally sound) one to another. And consequently here [ a wife to her sister] will be directly according to the sacred idiom, 
The interpretation of other Jews.  or the Hebrews manner of speech, One wife unto another.  
'tis true, what 
On Lev. 18.18.  H. Grotius and J. Drus●us say, that the Pesictha reprehends the Karaeans for this interpretation. And the Jews more generally affirm, That the thing forbidden in that place, is the having two sisters together, and not two wives together; and from thence conclude it lawful to have two sisters successively. But it is visible what brings them into that opinion, 
In favour of Polygamy.  viz. the beloved and presumed lawfulness of Polygamy, which they are unwilling to have restrained; yet must aclowledge to be so by this Text, if those words be thus interpnted with the Karaeans. Mean-while it will be hard to find among those Jews( who affirm from that place the lawfulness of marrying two sisters successively) any show of reason for either of these two things, 1. Why the marrying the deceased wives sister should be there permitted, where marrying the deceased brothers wife is distinctly forbidden. Or 2. why Polygamy, which by dispensation to the Jews, is acknowledged to be permitted them in order to multiplying that people, should not be believed to be prohibited the Jews in general, or the prohibition of it be set down among those Laws, which had been given to the sons of Adam and Noah,( here put together in this Chapter) as well as the marrying the brothers wife, which is acknowledged to be permitted, nay in one case prescribed the Jew, is yet distinctly here forbidden.  
For the former of these, 'tis true that Abarbane l inquiring why it should be prohibited the Nephew to mary the Uncles wife, 
The vanity of their Reasons.  and not prohibited the Uncle to mary the Nephews wife, refers himself to Maimonides Moreh Nebahim 3.49. where he saith, That God, intending the diminution of uncleanness, prohibited it under those heavy penalties in those persons, which had the most continual conversation together, and so most occasion of it, as the Nephew hath more occasion to converse in the Uncles house, then the Uncle in the Nephews. And again he adds it, as the opinion of one of their Divines, that the Reason of most of the prohibitions in this kind, is to be fetched from the care of peace, and avoiding of jealousy and contention, which is sharpest, saith he, among persons that are otherwise ne●rest: Which reason ceaseth, when the sister of her that is married is deceased. But certainly there is little in either of these reasons to satisfy any reasonahle man.  
For 1. can it be believed that it is indeed lawful for the Uncle to mary the Nephews wife, 
Discovered.  when the Nephews marrying the Uncles wife is expressly prohibited? or are the Jews to be headed in so senseless an affirmation? It hath already been shown§. 13. That all marriages of near of kin( whether Consanguinity or Affinity) are distinctly forbidden, v. 6. and is there any imaginable colour of doubting, but the Nephews wife is as near to the Uncle, as the Uncles wife to the Nephew? And again, that parity of reason is of force in the interpreting these prohibitions? And what is parity of reason in this matter of Propinquity, but that those marriages which equally partake of Propinquity, should be deemed equally unlawful?  
And for the Reason there cited from Maimonides, it is impossible it should be soberly conceived to have any thing of reasonable in it: for 1. By that reason Incest should be forbidden onely to keep men from fornication, and so fornication be the greater, and Incest the lesser sin. As that certainly, which is therefore forbidden, that it may secure another Precept, is to be looked on as a lighter fault, then the breach of that Precept, as the means is inferior, because subordinate to the end: and as the prohibition of the eating of blood, being designed to deter from shedding of mans blood: and the command of Circumcision, to keep from uncleanness; the eating of blood, and neglect of Circumcision, are sure lighter offences then murder and unnatural Lusts. 2. By this reason, those severe penalties should onely have been made against Fornication or Adultery, committed with those with whom we most familiarly converse, but not against marrying of them. For supposing that it were still lawful for brothers and sisters to mary, the making it capital for them to commit uncleanness one with another out of marriage, would as much deter them from such uncleanness, as if it were also capital for them to mary. He that were sure to be hanged for swearing, would be as certainly deterred from swearing, as if the same punishment were denounced against swearing and cursing also; which makes it probable, that the ground or end of those prohibitions, was the lessening of, or restraining from uncleanness, but more probably, that peace& amity might by this means be extended more largely, then the natural bands of relation had extended it, as both Plutarch in his 101 Roman question, and S. Augustine de Civ. Dei, l. 15. c. 16. have affirmed. Or if there were no other reason against incestuous conjunctions, the Positive Will of God alone were reason sufficient. But then 3. there is no reason to affirm or suppose, that those that are expressly forbidden to mary others, are more frequently conversant in their houses, then those that are as near, but are not forbidden. For example; the fathers brother is name, and the mothers sister, but the mothers brother is not name; and yet the niece may be as conversant in the mothers brothers house, as in the fathers brothers, or as the nephew in the mothers sisters, and there is no imaginable reason of disparity to be pretended. And however, this cannot be applied to the point in hand: for the wives Sister is as frequently in the house, and conversant with her Sister, as the husbands brother with his brother;& so there is no reason deducible from hence, why the one should be interdicted, the other not.  
Then for that other Reason, fetched by their Divines from the care of avoiding of jealousy and contention, 
The second reason from the sharpness of sisters quarrels.  that certainly must extend to the interdicting of all Polygamy, or, if considered in earnest, Concubinacy, where the wife doth not consent; as well as of taking one Sister to another. For supposing the wife to whom he hath covenanted to cleave as long as she lives, to require of him the discharge of this Oath, what peace can there be betwixt her, and any other( an inferior, her servant perhaps) that is injuriously taken in and preferred before her? This is in universum so contrary to peace, so sure to be vexatious, that, as was said, Divorces were permitted by God, as more tolerable injuries, more reconcilable with peace, then they.  
The whole weight of this pretended Reason, lies upon this, 
A mistake.  That the quarrels of those that are nea●est are most sharp: But if there were no injury to provoke any quarrel at all,( as supposing Polygamy absolutely lawful, though there would be sin against the law of propinquities, yet against the wife there would be no injury in taking in one Sister to another) then sure the nearness were a more reasonable argument to secure their friendship, then to engage their causeless ●nmity. For although the greatness of the former friendship, by enhancing the subsequent injury, doth fitly add to the exasperation, and make it more unreconcilable; yet sure without any such provocation, it cannot reasonably beget it, and therefore the old saying of Fratrum quoque gratia rara est, the kindness of brethren is a rare thing( which I see by some learned men made use of to this purpose) is sure misapplied by them, for that was never in any the most ironny age so to be interpnted or extended, that the friendships of brethren are rarer then of any others,( unless by the accident of living most together, they may have more occasions of quarrels, then others that live at greater distance, and then to counterbalance that, the length of the familiarity, and acquaintance. And advantage of conversation to beget kindness, and conserve it, may be as competent reasons to make their kindness exceed others, and being deeper rooted, to flourish the more) but that, as an expression of the little love that is among men, fratrum quoque— even brethren also have seldom a constant agreement and kindness to one to another. 
2 Tim. 3.3.  Thus certainly it is meant by the Apostle as a sad character on the latter dayes( those before Gods vengeance on the crucifiers) that men should be without natural affection, as Christ had foretold of the same times, that they should be betrayed by parents and brethren, &c. Luk. 21.16. Mar. 13.12. which signifies this to be the greatest, and the most extraordinary evidence of the failing, or growing could of Charity, Mat. 24.12. and that which includes, and presupposes the lower degrees of uncharitableness, between those that are not so near; but is far from concluding, That those that are thus nearest, are thus aptest to betray, and hate one another. It is clearly a presumption of the contrary.  
So far is it from having any appearance of reason( what is pretended by these Jews) that the taking two Sisters together is the onely thing there forbidden. And indeed, if those two things were granted, which are by them supposed. 1. That more wives might by that law be had at once; and 2. That one Sister might be taken after the decease of the other, the conclusion would undeniably be inferred, that the two Sisters might be taken together, were it not for that one danger of their being more vexatious, and more unreconcilable to one another, then any others would be; which being shewed to be no reason, their whole pretention is vanished, their double plea, 1. For Polygamy, and 2. For marrying two Sisters successively, is brought to nothing.  
Then for the second, why it may not be believed, or acknowledged by a Jew, That Polygamy should be here forbidden, though by dispensation otherwise permitted the Jews, as well as marrying the brothers wife be permitted the Jew, which is here acknowledgedly prohibited, I find not any reason pretended, nor is it imaginable that any thing of any weight should be producible by any Jew. 'tis visible to common sense, that what would hold for one, would hold for the other, being both positive laws, and so equally dispensable; both given to the Sons of Adam and Noah, and from thence transcribed, under that head of Disclosing of nakednesses, and so equally obligatory, till they were dispensed with, and to all others, who had no such dispensation; and so, without any exp●i●it interdict of Christs, both prohibited to us Christians. And therefore 1. it was but a shortness of discourse in those Jews, that thought their Charter for their beloved Polygamy so deeply concerned in this interpretation of those words: and 2. the greater their interest was conceived to be, the less will their authority be able to persuade others. And however the Karaeans, 
The Karaeans,  those that profess, and by their name are acknowledged to keep close to the letter of the sacred Precept, are less likely to mistake, by enlarging the literal sense of it, then any others, who from the subsequent permission and customary practices of Polygamy, and their known zeal in that cause, whereby their lusts were so highly gratified, have been induced to that other interpretation. And of Maimonides 
And Mai●o●ides.  'tis evident,( which of all those Hebrew Writers hath the reputation of the most sober and most skilful in their learning) that in his opinion by this Chapter of Leviticus, are forbidden the conjunctions of those, that are nearest to one another, by marriage, as well as by blood, in which number the wives Sister must needs be acknowledged to be included, none being imaginable to be nearer. And so the words of the Text enforce, v. 6. None shall approach to any that is near of kin to him.  
But to all this the practise of Jacob in marrying two Sisters 
Jacobs marrying of two Sisters,  before the law, is objected, both as an example of the lawfulness of that practise among the Nations, before the law was given to the Jews, and as a probable reason, why this law against taking one Sister to another in her life time, was here made, viz. to prevent the like quarrels, which had fallen out between Leah and Rachel, and so as a reason still, that those words should be rendered [ a wife to her Sister] and not [ one wife to another.]  
To this I answer, 1. That these quarrels ( as was said) are as incident to strangers, that meet in the same great interest( in case of such injury, and invasion of propriety) as to Sisters they can be. If Jacob had married any other wife in stead of Leah, is it probable that Rachels love, and barren womb, would have been more patient of that competition? If all such dissensions as those betwixt Jacobs wives were designed to be prevented by this law, it is certain the law was very imperfect, and unable to attain its end, or else all Polygamy, against the consent of the former wife, was here prohibited. And therefore 2. unless it otherwise appear, that that interdict Lev. 18.18. be to be interpnted of two Sisters, that of Jacobs marrying two Sisters, will have nothing to do with it, being not at all referred to by any part of the Context, but onely fancied to be so from the casual concurrence and agreement of the story of the one, with that which is conceited to be forbidden in the other. Which indeed may probably have been a means to impose upon some, and have given them prejudices this way: but being a remote ground of conjecture, which is not so much as a probable argument( of which also there may be more then one for any thing that is most untrue) will have no force to interpret that Text that way, much less to prove that the sixth verse, which forbids approaching to any that are near of kin, did not forbid approaching to the wives Sister, which is so very nea●; or that the 16. verse, that forbids approaching to the brothers wife, did not, à pari, forbid this which is directly equal and parallel to it.  
And therefore all the force that can be pretended from this objection, 
Jacobs example impertinent.  must be that, which arises from Jacobs example, who, it is acknowledged, did this, and was a pious man, and lived before the law, and so may seem to be a proof that this was formerly practised. And therefore some farther answer must be given to that: And it will soon be done, 1. By observing that as far as it doth prove any thing, it doth prove more then they that make use of it to infer the lawfulness of marrying the Sister of the deceased wife, do desire to prove from it. And therefore I shall first demand, when- they can from Jacobs example think it lawful for a Christian now to have two Sisters together? and if they think they may not, then whence the unlawfulness of that proceeds? If from the Jewish law in that verse, Lev. 18.18. Then, it seems, that, which was given to none but the Jews, doth oblige us Christians: which is both false, and acknowledged by the objecters to be so: If from the law given to the sons of Adam or Noah, then it seems this was forbidden by that law, and then Jacobs practise must be directly contrary to that law, and so be an acknowledged transgression in him, and not imitable in us: If onely by the Christian law, then that Christian law will no where appear express to that purpose; and for any deduction which will be producible from thence, to conclude this, the like will as readily be produced to interdict the marriage of the Sister of the deceased wife. And so still this argument from Jacobs example will not be useful to the objecter. But then 2. for Jacobs practise, as it concerned his individual, considered as a pious man, though it be most certain, that all the actions of a pious man are not pious; and, that Jacobs actions particularly, do not all appear to be pious, witness the deceiving his father, and supplanting his brother of his birthright first, and then his blessing, yet it is farther observable to what original this action of his must be imputed.  
He loved Rachel, and, by compact for seven years servi●e with Laban her father, 
The ori●inal of Jacobs action.  was promised to have her to wife, Gen. 29.18, 19, 20. and having performed the condition so far as to call her, and that truly, his wife, v. 21. he required to have her given him, that he may go in unto her. And the marriage-feast being kept, v. 22.( all which implies and supposes them absolutely married) Laban at night took Leah, and brought her to him, and he went in unto her, mistaking her for Rachel, and not knowing his error till the morning, v. 25. which thus far being wholly imputable to Laban, and not to Jacob( who was not conscious of it) cannot be imagined sufficient to annul his marriage with Rachel, which was before completed( as far as compact of parents, consent of parties, and all the solemnities of marriage, accustomend in the place, could complete it) and so leaves this hard necessity inevitably on Jacob, either to leave his own espoused beloved Rachel, and take his neither espoused, nor beloved Leah, or else to leave them both, the one whom he had married, the other to whom he had gone in( for it is not imaginable, that Laban that would not before let him prefer Rachel before Leah, would now, having a much stronger obligation to the contrary, permit him to do it) or else to take them both, which accordingly he did. To which also that some divine dispensation was added, though it is not defined in the Scripture, yet, considering the promise of God to keep him, and be with him in all, whether places to which, or affairs about which he goes, Gen. 28.15. and again the many revelations of God by dream afforded him; and yet farther, the blessing that ensued on Leahs offspring( six patriarches, and Judah the line of Christ, one of them) and the custom of blessing in her name, Ruth 4.11. it is( not improbably) excusable. But I lay not the weight on that. The force of the objection was before sufficiently evacuated.  
The first part of the consequence being thus cleared, 
The prohibition of marrying the wives sister never superseded.  viz. that the taking the wives Sister was to the Jews forbidden; The second branch( viz. that this prohibition was not afterward superseded or dispensed with, by the countermand in Deuteronomy, of marrying the brothers wife) will immediately appear both by the force of the old rule, That the law of exceptions confirms the obligation of all those that are not excepted, and especially by the cessation of the reason for the taking away this latter, which held and prevailed for the taking away the former obligation. For whereas the preserving of the elder brothers family, depended on the younger's marrying the relict, and raising up seed to him, which might succeed to his name and patrimony, 'tis manifest that the Sisters succeeding the Sister, and bearing children to the husband, would bring no such advantage along with it: For any other wife, of any other family, would as probably bear him children, and doing so, as certainly bear up his name and family, as his wives Sister could do: whereas the son of another family, marrying the relict of the eldest brother of this, would certainly beget all the children to his own name and family, and not to him, whose wife he married.  
All that is now behind for the bringing this home to us Christians, will be best adapted by way of reply to one expected objection. For it being granted, that this was thus by parity of reason acknowledged to be interdicted the Jews; It will yet be replied, and objected, That neither of these two interdicts pertain to us Christians, any more then other Judicial laws, which were by God also given to the Jews, 
How this law, being given to the Jews, is obligatory to Christians.  are supposed to be obligatory to us. To this I answer by acknowledging the force of the objection, as far as is yet pretended. For it is certain, that no law obliges those, to whom it was not given, and consequently that no law, given onely to the Jews( that people of one particular nation, and not the Representative of the whole world, or from whose loins all others were to be peopled) lays any engagement( though to them 'twere given even by God himself) on any other Nation, into whose municipal laws it hath not by the Governors been received, either by their free, prudential choice, or by way of imitation from them, and following that pattern, which they see given by God to his own people. And when it is so received by the subsequent laws of any other nation, it is their receiving it, and not the first giving it to the Jews, that becomes obligation to those others.  
Onely here it must now be added in the last place. That this law which was given to the Jews, Lev. 18. had been formerly given by God to the sons of Adam, 
This Law given formerly to the sons of Adam. ( either after that the way of satisfying the first necessity, the propagating and peopling the world, was once provided for, or before, with a reservation of liberty in that one case) and from thence by Tradition to the sons of Noah, as those that represented all the nations of the world, that should come from them, and so consequently was obligatory to all. Whereupon the Jews affirm of that interdict, Lev. 18.6. which forbids these marriages, that it binds not onely the Israelite, but {αβγδ} the stranger or proselyte, who, we know, was obliged by those Precepts onely, which were given to the sons of Noah. For though Gods giving these laws to the sons of Adam or Noah is not affirmed in Scripture, yet( according to the foundation laid in the former 
§. 7.  Discourse, as a preparative to what I am now to build upon it) it is to be believed by all those that aclowledge Scripture, upon another score.  
For 1. one of the Precepts of the sons of Adam and Noah enumerated by the Jews( and therefore looked on by the Apostles at the Synod of Jerusalem, 
The proof of that.  as that which concerned the Gentiles as well as the Jews) is entitled, as was said {αβγδ} Of, or, Against disclosing Nakednesses, and that by the Jews generally expressed by De incestu& illicito concubitu, Of Incest and unlawful conjunction; and every one of the forbidden propinquity, Mother, Sister, &c. styled {αβγδ} Nakedness or turpitude. Which therefore in all reason is to be extended as far as the interdict, Lev. 18. which is there entitled in like manner, The disclosing or uncovering of Nakedness, v. 6. &c. 
The seven Precepts of the sons of Noah, Act. 15.  This will farther appear by comparing these seven Precepts, as they have been set down from the Jews Traditions, with the style wherein they are mentioned, Act. 15. whereas the two first concerning strange Worship, and the benediction of the one God, the God of Israel, are summarily comprised under the style of Abstaining from things offered to Idols; and that of shedding blood, under [ Abstaining from blood] and that of a member of a live creature, or eating flesh with the blood in it, under that of things strangled, and those two, of judgements, or administration of justice, and of theft( for which some Jewish Writers read [ ●oing as they would be done to]) under those words( which some printed books, and many ancient written Copies, particularly Beza's venerable Greek and latin one, which he sent to the University of Cambridge, have added, and the Aethiopick and other Interpreters retain) {αβγδ}, and what you would not have done to yourselves, do not that to any other; so the fourth Precept, {αβγδ} Of, or, Against disclosing Nakednesses, is rendered, {αβγδ}, abstaining from fornication.  
Which being premised, it is 2. manifest, that the word {αβγδ}, ordinarily rendered fornication, 
Fornication used in a latitude for all lusts prohibited.  is used in the New Testament in a greater latitude then is ordinarily thought to belong to it, so as to contain in it, not onely Adultery, as appears Mat. 5.32. and 19.9. but also all unnatural sins, contrary to the distinction of sexes and kindes,( {αβγδ}, saith Thomas Magister) and also all breaches of the positive interdict of Propinquity. In a word, all unlawful desires of the flesh, of what kind soever, all acts of prohibited carnality. Of this nature there were many sorts still remaining among the new Converts of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5.1. and therefore his charge against them lies in that indefinite form, {αβγδ}, fornication, 
{αβγδ}.  or perhaps in an universal, comprehensive form, {αβγδ}, Fornication universally or in gross, containing all the several species of it: And one species there name by him, is that of incestuous Copulation with the fathers wife.  
Now to bring home these premises to the point in hand. 
Incest unlawful among the Gentiles.  It is there directly said, 1 Cor. 5.1. that the having( or conjugal living with) the deceased fathers wife, is such a fornication, as is not name among the Gentiles. To which I might add that speech of Virgil, — Thalamos ausum incestare Novercae, calling it a bold incestuous fact. This was by Charondas a heathen made infamous, which is more then to be pronounced unlawful. And when Seleucus the King would have married his wife Stratonice to Antiochus his son, he was afraid, saith Plutarch, lest she should be offended with the unlawfulness of the fact. Of other incestuous conjunctions, such as this was, the heathens are frequent in their expressions of detestation. Lysias an heathen Orator, {αβγδ}, to mary the mother and the daughter, was an act of the most wretched of all men. And Cicero pro Cluentio, cries out of another of like sort, O scelus incredibile,& praeter hanc unam in omni vitâ inauditum, that it was an incredible villainy; and of which in his whole life he had never heard of a precedent. And 
{αβγδ}.  Aristophanes speaking of a brother lying with his sister of the same mother, speaks it with a full detestation, 
— {αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.  O accursed man, &c. And it is Aristotles observation in his politics, that he that should ignorantly commit such a fact, would, when he knew it, abhor that pleasure.  
And thus it is the conjecture of the learned Photius, 
Though practised by them.  That the Circumcision of Abraham, and his posterity was instituted as an emblem of restraint from incestuous copulations, The Chaldaeans, saith he, Epist. {αβγδ}. mixed with their mothers daughters and sisters, {αβγδ}, by an impious detestable custom, gotten in among them; and therefore that neither he, nor his posterity, {αβγδ}, should be polluted with these customs of their fathers, he was commanded to be circumcised, {αβγδ}, for the abolishing of such nefarious turpitude, the circunctsing of his own flesh, being saith he, {αβγδ}, the dividing, and averting him from those of Consanguinity or Affinity with him, {αβγδ}, in respect of conjugal conversation. Whereas, saith he the Chaldaeans incontinence {αβγδ} without fear or shane, continued a long while after▪ Abrahams time to commit such villainies. And if this were so, and, upon that score, among others, Abraham were commanded to leave the place of his nativity, then will this be an evidence of the prohibition of these marriages to all the nations before that time, by the precepts given to the sons of Adam and Noah. And then there will be little reason to doubt, but that this interdict extended to affinities, as well as consanguinities, and all that are prohibited the Jews, Lev. 18. particularly that mentioned by S. Paul, with such abhorrence, as that which was not name among the Gentiles, or which, though it had been committed, was yet looked on as an {αβγδ}, a commission of that which it was ashame to name. To which purpose it is observable, what is so oft and so distinctly affirmed, Lev. 18.24, 25, 27, 30. and c. 20.23. that in all these, i.e. all the incestuous marriages( as well as unnatural lusts) there prohibited, the nations were defiled which God cast out before the Jews, which so heavy a punishment inflicted on those heathen nations for this iniquity, must conclude this positive prohibition of incestuous marriages to have been long before given to them, as well as those natural instincts against the unnatural sins, for all which jointly they were abhorred by God, and cast out.  
The learned 
De Jure belly, l. II. c. 5. Sect 14.  Hugo Grotius indeed ( whose authority, I foresee, will be here objected) is inclinable to restrain the note of universality to the principal heads of that Chapter, unnatural conjunctions with mankind, with beasts, with parents, with sisters, with other mens wives, and that the other are added onely {αβγδ}, by way of fortification and prevention of the former. But( beside, that the Karaeans have prevented this interpretation, by affirming the whole kind of incestuous marriages( of which, 
Every of these prohibited to, and punished in the nations.  say they, those that follow are but some examples) to be comprehended in the first words of the interdict, v. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him) 'tis obvious to conceive how ill a precedent this is, and how dangerous a way of interpreting, to restrain, where the law doth so distinctly not restrain, to except some particulars, when the words are repeated over and over, in the most unlimited comprehensive form of universality: Defile not yourselves in any of these, for in all these the nations &c. v. 24. and, Ye shall not commit any of these, v. 26. for all these abominations &c. v. 27. and, Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, v. 29. and, not any of these abominable customs, v. 30. And so again c. 20.23. the nations committed all these. 'tis not possible words should be more providently formed to exclude all exception or restraint, and to define every of the forenamed practices to be abominations first, and those very abominations( all of them) for which the Canaanites were cast out, and consequently that they were prohibited by some former law, by which those Canaanites were obliged, or else could not thus be spewed out for committing them. As for the example of Jacob, which is conceived to favour that interpretation by marrying two Sisters, that hath been answered 
§. 27, &c.  already, and an account given of his doing it, which is reconcilable with that prohibition; and though he were a pious man, 'tis clear, Laban, who was the cause of his defiling Leah, when he had married Rachel, was not to be deemed such. And for the example of Amrams marrying his Aunt, and some of the grecians, Iphidamas and Diomedes, doing the like, they will be far from argumentative, when it is considered how many single men of all times, and even whole nations have been guilty of breaches of a higher nature, then those against positive laws. That it was not much more ordinary among all people, it would be very strange if there had not been some acknowledged restraint laid upon it, and the very producing of so few, and these noted as singular examples, is a fairer probability on the other side, that such marriages were accounted unlawful, where the law of Moses had not prohibited them, and so that to some former laws, that obliged all, this temper was imputable. And accordingly it is known, that Reuben, Jacobs eldest son,( long before the law given to the Jews) is disinherited for the crime of going up to his fathers bed, defiling his fathers concubine, Gen. 25.22. and c. 49.4. and 1 Chron. c. 5.1.  
Which being granted, there will be no reason to doubt, but that all and every of those marriages forementioned, particularly that of the brothers wife( which is the next degree to the fathers wife) and this of the wives Sister as near( and in the same line) as that, was forbidden also. 
The Arabians practise herein.  To which purpose there is an eminent testimony of a learned arabic Writer. Al Sharestanius, set down by Mr. Pocock in his Notes on the History of the Ancient Arabs. Turpissimum eorum quae faciebant( Arabes tempore ignorantiae) erat hoc, quòd vir duas sorores,& patris sui uxorem, velut successor, assumer●t, The foulest thing that the old Arabs did in time of ignorance, was this, that a man married two sisters, and took, as heir, or successor, the wife of his deceased father. Of the latter of which, saith Al Mostatraf Ebnol Arhir, that when a woman was left a widow, or divorced from the husband, the eldest son should take her by inheritance, and cast his garment over her, as a sign of it. This being formerly in use, was by the Alcoran forbidden, O vos qui creditis, non permissum est vobis foeminas haereditatis jure accipere. They that receive Mahomed's laws, must not take the fathers wives by way of inheritance. From which testimonies though it be concluded that some nations did admit that, which S. Paul saith was not so much as name among the Nations( as it is affirmed by Strabo of those Arabians, that they used to take their own daughters, and so Clemens and Bardesanes say of the Persians also) yet S. Paul might by the word Gentiles mean the controller, or more regular of the unconverted Gentiles, or speaking to the converted Corinthians, might mean the unconverted of that Province; and being true of those, it is sufficient to justify S. Pauls speech, who to the reproach of Christians, mentions this practise among them, and adds that the heathens were not without an abhorrence of it.  
mean while it is clear from thence, 
§. 40.  both that the practise, though admitted among the old ignorant Arabs, was looked upon by Mahomed himself as a foul nefarious thing, and also that taking to wife of two Sisters was looked on as a crime of the same quality with marrying the father's wife, and that is all I intended to conclude from it.  
Which therefore being thus concluded, 
The Christians obligation.  and supposed to be by God interdicted to the sons of Adam and Noah,( and so to all the nations of the world) and that not onely as a ceremony to hedge in another duty( as that of the member of a live creature, or flesh with the blood in it, or {αβγδ}, of that which was strangled, evidently was, to beget a dread of shedding mans blood, Gen. 9.4.6.) but as a prohibition terminated in itself, and this again not abrogated by Christ, but stricter laws of purity, now enacted by him, then ever had been before, and {αβγδ} in the full latitude absolutely forbidden, as that which should exclude him that were guilty of it out of the kingdom of heaven; and the same again by S. Paul more distinctly applied to this matter, under the {αβγδ}, fornication in gross( containing all the species of it, and so all these disclosings of nakedness, Lev. 18. of which number this is by analogy resolved to be one) All this, I say, together, will make a very competent authority to deter any Christian from the use of it, and that {αβγδ}, for conscience of that duty and obedience, which every creature must pay to God, every Christian to Christ, though the Scripture rather intimates( and relates to) this interdict, as a thing supposed, then defines how, or when, or to whom( beside the Jews) it was ever given.  

The Authority of the Church.  Beyond all this it is farther manifest, That the Church of Christ( which will bear sway with all humble and sober Christians, and to whose Canons none did ever obstinately deny submission, without the brand and reward of Schism, that great sin of carnality in the Apostles account, most contrary to the unity of members, and to the meekness prescribed by Christ) hath through all ages from the Apostolical first and purest times, been most strict in prescribing abstinence from such liberties, particularly this, which we have now in hand: which appears partly by the Infamy which hath attended such marriages, which supposes them to have been reputed unlawful by some former law, partly by the plain words of Canons which have forbidden them. The apostolic Canons 
The apostolic Canon.  forbid the taking of any man into the Clergy, making him Bishop or Deacon, which shall have married two Sisters( one after the death of the other) or the brothers daughter, {αβγδ}. And Zonaras styles it there, {αβγδ}, an incestuous marriage. Where, if it be thought that this is no mark of the unlawfulness of the thing, but onely an interdict to the clergy, that they shall not mary thus, leaving it free to others: This will be the same strange way of arguing, as if from the qualifications of the Bishop set down by S. Paul, that he should be no drunkard, no covetous person, &c. i.e. that such as are so, should not be admitted to holy Orders, we should conclude that these qualities might be lawful and free from other men, who were not ecclesiastics, or because the Bishop must be one that hath not married after such 
See Resolution to the third Quaere, §. 34.  Divorces as are forbidden by Christ; and the widow is to be the wife but of one husband in like manner, it were therefore lawful for all other Christians to use such Divorces and mary again, which we know was prohibited by Christ, or that other Christian women might have more husbands, or leave one and mary another, which we know was never lawful among any civil, though Heathen people. The plain of it is, that the onely thing conclusible from the interdicts of the Church Canons, is the frequency of such practices among believers, which made it necessary to revive and refresh the prohibition to Christians: To whom, under Christ, such marriages were reputed so foul, and the state of such sins being permanent, did so much enhance them above the nature of Single acts of greater sins, that, although for every commission of any known Sin, a man were not made uncapable of any dignity in the Church,( or rendered irregular, if after the receiving of orders he were found guilty) yet of these sins he that were once guilty, should for ever remain under a brand, and be counted uncapable of holy Orders, which he, that were otherwise worthy, would not, surely, have been, had it not been accounted unlawful, before that Canon inflicted that punishment on the offender. And then it being acknowledged that Christ hath not descended to the specifying of such particulars; and that the Apostle that speaketh of one such sin, saith it was not name among the Gentiles, the result will be, That this brand of the Apostolical Canon, is founded in the Universal Prohibition obliging all men, and so the Christians of all nations, as well as the Jews, and that not abrogated but confirmed, and by stricter precepts of ꝯtinence, and denunciations against the incontinent, continued on the Christian by Christ.  
What was thus punished and marked by the Apostolical Canon, 
The Eliberitan.  was after in the council of Eliberis universally interdicted to all under a severe penance, Can. 61. or rather a penance of such a quality assigned it, which presupposed the prohibition, and acknowledged unlawfulness of it: Si quis post obitum uxoris suae sororem ejus duxerit &c. If any man after the death of his wife, shall mary his wives Sister, and she be a believer, he shall be excommunicate for the space of five years. And the like is so frequent throughout the Canons, and so acknowledged to be so, that there is no need of multiplying any more testimonies, They who have disputed this interdict, and against whose doubts this Discourse was designed, being the men who express their displeasure against the tyranny of the Church-Canons, which have, say they, obtruded these restraints upon men, who have otherwise a richer inheritance of liberty belonging to them.  
To these I shall add but this one thing, that if the authority of the universal Church of Christ be so vile to them, 
The laws of the Realm.  yet the authority of the Civil Magistrate, and municipal Laws being not so profestly under their prejudice, it is sufficiently known that thus much of the Canon law is received into, and confirmed by the Law of this Land, and the 
See Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 22. and 28 H. 8. c. 7. and 32 H. 8. c. 38. and Lord s●kes Magna Charta, p. ●●3.  marrying the wives Sister expressly prohibited. And this is not rashly to be despised by any, though the Commissioners which were wont to have the cognizance and punishing of such facts, be not so likely to call men to account for them. It being still reasonable that conscience should restrain, when fear of wrath is not ready to do it; and that those Laws, which are not presently able to avenge themselves, should be esteemed to have God( whose Title it is to defend the poor, and punish the wrong-doer) for their more solemn, and more formidable avenger.   

The third Quaere.  

CHAP. I. Concerning Polygamy and Divorces.  
OF this subject I have 
Pract Ca●. l. 2. Sect. 7.  formerly spoken as far as seemed necessary for the informing of vulgar understandings: But to satisfy the Objections of some, which have appeared in public, and out of a foresight of possible, if not approaching, Evils; and because there is more hope of obstructing their entrance, then of removing them after admission: It may be both charitable and seasonable to take a larger view of this matter, and to vindicate it from the prejudices under which it hath fallen, and to which the pride and lusts of men have subjected it in these licentious dayes.  
And first it will not be amiss to imitate Christs method, 
The Law of the Creation in this.  Mat. 19. who in answer to this same Quaere proposed by the Pharisees, recalleth and remitteth them from the dispensation which had been made, and the corrupt practices which had crept in among the Jews, to the first institution of God in the creation, v. 4, 5. That institution is expressed in these words in Genesis, A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh, Gen. 2.24.  
And from Christs interpretation of it, which is most certainly authentic, 
Conclusions from Christs interpretation of that.  1. That the [ they] is [ they twain] and 2. That those that are thus united by this institution of Gods, are not separable by any act of man, Mat. 19.6. And 3. that there was in Gods institution but one only case reserved, wherein, according to his Will, there should be place for Divorces,[ viz. that case of fornication in the wife, so contrary to the ends and vow of marriage] the result is immediate and evident, that by the law of his creation, a man was to mary but one wife, and being married, he was obliged( unless in that one case allowed of by God) so to cleave to her, as never to separate or depart from her.  
Of this institution thus set down, there are visibly two branches, 
Two parts of that law.  one for the interdicting of Polygamy, or having at once more wives then one, the other for prohibiting of Divorces in all but that one case.  
The words[ {αβγδ}, they two shall be one flesh]( which Plato appears to have learned as he did other things, out of Moses, 
First an interdict of Polygamy.  when in his dialogue {αβγδ}, he saith, that anciently male and fema●e were put together into one body) are an evident interdict of Polygamy, being an affirmation that the husband and wife, being originally but one, though divided into two bodies, are now by Gods institution, in stead of the first natural oneness, morally become one person, i.e. in reputation of divine law, and by virtue of their vow, have but one will in those things, wherein that union is to consist, i.e. in conjugal matters, and consequently that the one hath not power or liberty to dispose of himself, without the consent of the other, the thing which S. Paul affirms as that which is known in marriage, 1 Cor. 7.4.  
And so it appears by Christs reasoning, when from that union he concludes the perpetual unlawfulness of putting away, 
Polygamy adulterous.  v. 6. which could not be unlawful from the beginning, if that no power over himself were not the meaning of that union, which was then instituted. So again when Christ not onely forbids Divorces( save in that one case) but also saith, that if they mary again, they are adulterous, this is an evidence that Polygamy is adulterous also.  
For though the putting away a wife( save onely in case of fornication) be an offence against the conjugal vow, and contrary to that union forementioned, the man having not power over his own body, without the consent of the other part of him, his wife; yet without his marrying again, he doth not himself actually commit adultery( onely gives her temptat●on to commit adultery, 
The adulterousness of Divorces consists in the second marriage.  Mat. 5.32.) By which 'tis evident, that the marrying that second wife, while the former lives, is that in which that mans adultery formally consists, and consequently that the having two wives together must necessary be adultery also( according to that first institution and law of Gods) when the former is not divorced.  
To which purpose it may be remembered what was incidentally shown in the 
§. 16. The interdict of Polygamy, Lev. 18.18.  former discourse, that though Polygamy was dispensed with, and so permitted the Jews in order to the multiplying that people,( in which respect many other things are observable in the Jewish writings, as peculiar to them: as when the Talmudists resolve, That every Jew was bound to mary, that he was a murderer that did not, Gemara Babyl: tit. Jabim. c. 6. And so Josephus, that the characteristic propriety of the jews, wherein they differed from other people, was {αβγδ}, getting of children) yet under the style of taking one wife to another, it was formally prohibited them, Lev. 18.18. in the close of the interdicted marriages( all which by the Positive Law of God, 
A recital of the law of the Creation.  had been, from the beginning, forbidden, and are all comprehended under the title of disclosing of nakedness, the fourth of those precepts to the sons of Adam) Thou shalt not take one wife to another to vex her,( to provoke her jealousy, to deprive her of any part of that which was due to her) in her life time. And it will anon appear, that the most unlawful divorce( that which was founded no otherwise then in some dislike of the first wife, or of stronger inclinations to some other) is by God himself preferred before this taking in another, to vex her, Mal. 2.  
And accordingly it is the determination of some jews, I say not how truly, 
The opinion of some Jews of Polygamy.  that the Mosaical permission of Divorces, is the onely account, upon which Polygamy can become reconcilable even with Moses's Law. So Rabbi Ami in Gemar. Babyl. Tit. Iabimoth, c. 6. Every one that marries a wife to a wife, must put away the first, and endow her.  
And though in the case of Hagar, and the handmaids of Iacobs wives, 
Concubinacy with consent of the wife.  the consent of the wives, and their giving them to their husbands, that they might bear children in their stead,( Gen. 16.2. and 30.9.) do make a visible difference from all other Co●cubinacies or second marriages, 
Without it.  wherei the former wife doth not consent, yet had this most moderate sort of Polygamy, or rather Concubinacy,( which is but a species of Polygamy, differing from it onely in some formalities, and in respect of the manner of endowing the woman, and the law of the childrens not succeeding to the inheritance with the children of the wife, to which the Apostle refers, 
Both unlawful till dispensed with.  Gal. 4.30.) been absolutely unlawful, as contrary to the institution of marriage in the first creation, had not God, for the increasing of Abrahams seed, been pleased to dispense with it.  
This dispensation we find not in the Law, when it was given, but see it supposed in the case of the maid-servant, Exod. 21.10. If he take him another wife, &c. and Deut. 21.15. If a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated,( both certainly at the same time) and the assigning a portion in the inheritance to the son of the superinduced, supposeth him to be a legitimate issue. And the example of David, a man after Gods own heart, so great a Prophet, and type of Christ, and yet so great a Polygamist, and that mentioned as the gift of God, and a blessing upon him, 2 saint. 12.8. are farther evidences of it. Yet this, I suppose, given to that people, not infinitely, but with some temper, if the Polygamist treated the first, as he ought, and rendered her the duty of marriage. So in that of Exod. 21.10. in case of the servant taken to wife, which failed of some privileges, which the free-woman had, yet If he take him another wife, her food and her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. The last of which the Septuagint renders {αβγδ}, and S. Paul seems to paraphrase by {αβγδ}. And if this were not done, if the first wife were hated in comparison of the second, i.e. partially and injuriously dealt with, then was this the sin mentioned Mal. 2.14. and there charged on the jews by the Prophet, the dealing treacherously with the wife of his youth, when God had been a witness between them, and she was the wife of his Covenant. And if any did then so multiply wives, not for propagation, but for lust, or to satisfy a wandring appetite,( a symptom of which it was, if the superinduced were more kindly treated, to the grieving of the first) without question that was then treachery, and falseness, and adultery in that jew, and is so called from God, Mal. 2.16. and pronounced by him utterly unlawful.  
Accordingly, As among the Iewes themselves, which took their liberty in the greatest latitude, 
Prohibitions of Polygamy among Jews and Gentiles.  it was not allowed the high priest to have more then one( He must not have two together, saith Maimonides Halach Isuri bia c. 17. and Gemara Babyl. collects it from Lev. 21.13. for it is there written, say they, {αβγδ} one wife, and not two) so from the relics of that law of the first creation, this was among the heathens so far resented as unlawful, that though the Persians and Indians, by barbarous customs having worn out the remains of the law, are confessed to have practised it, yet the controller of the nations did religiously abstain from it. The Germans, saith Tacitus, in his time, contented themselves with one wife apiece. Among the Athenians, Cecrops revived the practise, {αβγδ}, and joined, or yoked, one woman to one man, saith Athenaeus. And of the Romans 'tis known, they never used that liberty of taking more. And even among the egyptians, their Priests( which were most knowing, and most observant of duty) solemnly abstained from it, saith A. Gellius, l. 15. c. 22.  
And ever since Christs coming to reform the world( and that in no one thing, 
All forbidden under Christ.  more then in restraining unbridled lusts in the fountain, Mat. 5.8, 28, 29, 30, 32.) 'tis evident by his words opposed to the mosaical indulgence, and by the strictness that is by him superadded to the jewish doctrines concerning Divorces, that it is in universum prohibited to all Christians; and being pronounced adultery, either simply, Mar. 10.11. and Luk. 16.18. or in case of any but one kind of Divorce, Mat. 19.19.( when yet the former wife, by being sent out of the house, is more moderately ill treated, and so comparatively a gainer by it, being freed from the vexation of the {αβγδ} or rival) it must needs be acknowledged so, when that is not the case.  
In this I foresee not any farther considerable difficulty, and therefore I proceed to the second branch, that concerning Divorces.   

CHAP. II. Of Divorces.  
IN this matter of Divorces also, if Christ may be believed, 
The first Institution.  the interdict was positive and clear in the first Institution( at the creation of man and woman) that the man should so cleave to the wife, as to be inseparable from her, and that without any reserve or exception, save in that onely case of falseness to the marriage-bed, or fornication.  
This, though it were not name by Moses in that place, 
The case of Fornication in the wife, reserved in the first Institution.  where that strict union is expressed, Gen. 2.24. was yet, it seems, folded up in that first law( for to that onely Christ in his reformation of this part of the jewish economy refers the matter.) In like manner, I suppose, as liberty to works of mercy and necessity, and the service of the Temple, was reserved in the law of the jewish Sabbath, so that there needed no intervention of new law or dispensation to make it lawful to divorce and separate in that one case, any more then to heal, or draw the ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath day, but in the very Institution itself it was always lawful.  
Thus certainly it stood by the law of the creation: and for any other liberty, {αβγδ}, from the beginning it was not instituted so. So saith S. Jerome, l. 1. advers. Jovinian. Ab exordio conditionis humanae nec carnibus vescebamur, nec dabamus repudium, From the beginning of mans creation we did neither eat flesh nor use divorces.  
But then, as of Positive Laws it was formerly cleared, that they may, 
The Jews dispensation herein.  when God pleases, be dispensed with, to those with whom he pleases, so it must be acknowledged, That among the Jews, such dispensation was given, to divorce in other cases, beside that singular reserved one of Fornication. And though from the words of Christ it must be concluded, that the reason of that dispensation was not the same with that other of Polygamy, nor so justifiable and clear from blame,( the hardness of their hearts, 
The occasion of it.  to which it is affixed, fastening an ill character upon it, as that which, in a manner, extorted from God the mitigation of the severity of the Law, in respect of the punishment, rather then persuaded the taking off the obligation of it) yet this is but an account of the different reasons of Gods actions, no way concluding against his liberty of permitting that to some, by dispensing with a Positive law, which otherwise had always stood more universally prohibited.  
This dispensation to the Jews is set down first Deut. 24.1. 
Deut. 24.1.  and referred to Mal. 2.16. In Deuteronomy the words are, When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found {αβγδ}, which we render some uncleanness, or matter of nakedness in her; then let him writ her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and sand her out of his house, and when she is departed, she may go and be another mans wife, v. 2. And if the latter husband hate her, and writ her a bill of divorcement, or if he die, the former husband may not take her again to be his wife, v. 3, 4.  
In this place, wherein the Jewish Charter of beloved Liberty is contained, 
The Jews interpretation of it.  great contention there hath always been among their Doctors, how largely it might be extended, some interpreting it( by the former clause[ her not finding favour in his eyes] and the mention of hating, v. 3.) to such a width, that whosoever disliked his wife, might thus speedily quit himself of her, and that {αβγδ}, whatsoever the cause of dislike were. Others have been content that this immense latitude should be limited by the latter clause to matters of turpitude or nakedness, whatsoever that signify, it being by all resolved, that it signifies not the sin of adultery onely.  
To state and decide this controversy betwixt the two pretensions of their Doctors, will not be worth our pains and stay, neither of those liberties being originally their due, much less the Christians portion. Yet of the Text itself two things may briefly be observed, 1. 
The ground of the Jewish divorces.  That the immediate ground of the mans divorcing the wife, is specified to be her finding no favour in his eyes, v. 1. his hating her, v. 2. i. e. disliking her either absolutely, or comparatively with some other, whom he preferred before her, and that the {αβγδ} matter of uncleanness or nakedness, 
The occasion of that ground.  is but the motive or occasion of that dislike or disfavor. 2. That when he thus thought fit to gratify his lust or fancy with variety, the obligations lay on him, 1. To writ a bill of divorce, 
The Restrictions in the dispensation.  and give it in her hand, as an act of manumission, and sealing her liberty to her: and 2. to sand her out of his house, which, I suppose, signifies the furnishing her for her journey, endowing her, making provision for her, for so {αβγδ}, 
{αβγδ}.  to sand out, signifies in the New Testament, to provide a viaticum, 1 Cor. 16.6, 11. Act. 15.3. Tit. 3.13. where 'tis explained by {αβγδ}, that they have no want of any thing: and accordingly in Rabbi Ami before cited, the endowing the wife, is annexed to the putting her away.  
Both which are in favour of the wife, privileges that accrue to her, 
The advantages to the wife in divorce.  to make the injury supportable. And the effect of them is, That she may go and be another mans wife, v. 2. be married to some other that will like her, and treat her better; and by way of mulct to the husband, that if he shall after be willing to rescind his unkind divorce, and receive her back again after the decease( or divorce again) of the second husband, he is not permitted to do it. To which it is added in Shulcan Aruch, c. 10.§. 1. that if she that is thus divorced be afterwards defiled, the husband is then bound to take her again, which, if it be true, will render it no very valuable liberty, or advantage to the husband, that he might thus put her away.  
This makes it less necessary to inquire what the {αβγδ} there signifies, 
The unjustifiableness of the husband.  which is rendered as the cause of his dislike: for if, the dislike being supposed, the law of Divorce were designed more for the wives, then the husbands advantage, to free her from the pain and vexation of his unkindeness, and the greater danger of anothers being taken in, and preferred before her; It matters little what the husbands cause of dislike was, it being very far, whatever it were, from being justified, or made blameless by this Law.  
From the place therefore in Deuteronomy, I proceed to that other in Malachi, 
The place for Divorces Mal. 2.  which is fully agreeable to what hath been concluded from hence, though it be somewhat darkened in the prophetical style, especially by our vulgar misrendring of it, which having not formerly been adverted by me, may have betrayed the Reader of the Practical Catechism( p. 130.) to some mistake, for which, being obliged to make him satisfaction, this literal interpretation, 
A Paraphrase of it.  and brief Paraphrase of a few verses, will help to do it.  
This people are frequently guilty of breach of their vows of wedlock, 
Ver. 14. The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, 
Or, whom thou hast forsaken, {αβγδ}, or despised.  against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.  taking in to their lawful Jewish wives, heathen women that are unlawful, and preferring these latter, to the great injury and vexation of the former, not considering the obligation of kindness, as to those which have long been married to them, nor of justice, as to those, to whom, by their vow of marriage, they are strictly bound never to take in any others, to the wronging and vexing of them; nor of piety, as to those, who by being of the same Religion with them, are much fitter for their friendship and company, and to whom withall they are joined by a most sacred tie, to which God was called as a witness. By all which it appears what a false, what an impious dealing this is.  

Ver. 15. Did that one( or, the first) do so? of whose spirit we are the residue. And what did that One?( or, First?) he was seeking a seed of God( or, a godly seed:) therefore restrain your spirit, and do not despise the wife of your youth.  In this matter it would do well, that you, that boast yourselves to be the children of Abraham, and expect great privileges from thence, would think fit to imitate that first Father of yours, the Rock whence ye are hewn, Isa. 51.1, 2.( called therefore One {αβγδ}, as One,( for want of degrees of comparison in Hebrew) is equivalent with First, as {αβγδ} Mat. 28.1. the one, i.e. the first of the week; and as the first denotes the Father, or first of that Nation) whose actions are to be copied out by you, that ye may be the children of his piety, as well as of his body. Now of Abraham it it is eminently known, That although his wife Sarah were barren, and so able to bring him no child, yet he would by no means take in to her any Idolatrous heathen wife; he intended and designed this one thing, the having children that should worship God, and so would not be tempted by her barrenness to take in an heathen wife, which might betray them to the contrary: whereas you, without that temptation, take in heathen wives to the Jewish, which you have long enjoyed, yea and prefer those mothers which will bring up your children to heathenism. Let this example of his restrain your wrath or displeasure( called {αβγδ} spirit, Job 15.13. where turning the spirit against God, is, being angry with him; and Zech. 6.8. where quieting Gods Spirit, is appeasing his wrath) and do not you use your wives thus unkindely, which have lived so long, and so friendly with you.  
For by the law of God, 
Ver. 16. For the Lord God of Israel saith, 
{αβγδ} a If thou hatest, put away, which Jarchi interprets, {αβγδ} If any of you hate a wife, let him put her away. So Gemara Babyl. ad Tit. Gitt●n, c. 9. Rabbi Jahuda said, {αβγδ} If thou hat●st her, put her away.  If thou hatest her, put her away, for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of Hosts; therefore restrain your spirit, that you deal not treacherously.  Deut. 24.1. thou art obliged, in case of such dislike and hating of thy wife, rather then thus to vex and grieve her, by taking in and preferring another, to the despising and rejecting her, to dismiss her by bill of divorce, that so she may mary some other that will be more kind to her, at least be removed from that vexation. And thy keeping her thus in thy house to see her self wronged and hated, is but a sad disguise or salue for thy injustice toward her, that which will yield her no more relief, then the hiding one, whilst I do him injury, casting a garment over him( by which marriage is wont to be described) whilst I use him most contumeliously. Wherefore, I say again, restrain your wrath and displeasure against your wives, and be not thus perjuriously false to them any longer.  
Thus in both these places thus explained, but especially in the latter, where there is no mention of turpitude, or any other accusation laid against her, the divorcing of the hated wife merely on the husbands dislikes, and aversations, without any real, or even pretended Crime, appears to have been permitted among the Jews; 
Divorces, {αβγδ}.  which sort of dislikes of his being multiplied according to his will, it follows, that it was, as the Pharisees say, Mat. 12.3. {αβγδ}, upon every cause, {αβγδ}, for any kind of accusations, saith Josephus, Ant. l. 4. c. 8. {αβγδ}, upon any occasion, saith Philo de Special. leg. ad praec. 7. and as Josephus in his own life saith of himself, {αβγδ}, upon dislike to her manners, certainly upon many others beside that one of fornication.  
Onely the occasion of this permission must be taken notice of, 
The permission of them but comparative.  which is both by Moses and Malachi so assigned, as to render it rather a comparative, then an absolute permission, rather to put away the hated wife, then by taking in another, to be false and voxatious to her; and so, when it was permitted, as an act of mercy and pity to the wife, 
And in pity to the w f●. ( and accordingly the bill of Divorce is in Syriack styled {αβγδ} The bill of Propriety, Mat. 5.31. whereby she is set at liberty from that unhappy yoke, and {αβγδ}, saith Josephus, By this means she hath power to mary another, Ant. l. 4. c. 8.) rather then of indulgence to the husband.  
And that notion of that permission Christ may seem to have had, 
And for hardness of their hearts  when he saith, that for the hardness of their hearts Moses suffered them to put away their wives, Mat. 19.8. For although those words may possibly signify no more then a general mark of the obstinacy of this prevailing humour, that( among them, when that permission was given) was not to be suppressed by laws, as a Chronical disease resists physic, and as Tacitus saith of adulta vitia, grown vices, that it is better to pass them over in silence, then by unseasonable prohibitions to let men know, quibus flagitiis impares sumus, that some vices are too hard for us; Yet the force of the words may very well be extended to this also, that they were such a stiff-necked people, and particularly so implacable to their loathed wives, that unless they had liberty to remove them and make new choices, they would do that which would be much more ingrateful to those wives; and that therefore not onely those practices were tenderly handled, and punishments suspended, but a permission explicitly allowed them for the avoiding of somewhat worse.  
But this, all this while, if we will believe our Saviour, 
And contrary to the first institution.  diametrally contrary to that which had been from the beginning, Mat. 19.8. i. e.( as, I conceive, the context enforceth) to the first Institution of God or the law of the Creation.  
For although the learned 
De Jure belly, i. II. c, 5. sect. ●.  Hugo Grotius be inclinable to interpret it onely of the quid Optimum, Deoque Gratissimum, &c. that which was best, and most acceptable to God, yet sure our Saviours words are clear, v. 5. from Gen. 2.24. that A man shall, i.e. is obliged to leave father and mother, and to cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh, and that this was a conjunction of Gods making, v. 6. All which being in form of Precept[ A man shall] and [ they two shall] and that founded in the taking the first woman out of the mans side( which was a signal emblem of the designed unity) and the words in Gen. 2.24. [ Therefore shall a man cleave to his wife] being not part of Adams speech precedent, but either a conclusion, and deduction made by the writer of the Book, and so referring to some known law to that purpose; or, as by Christs citation of it, Mat. 19.5. it is evident, the Command of God himself, a law then enacted by him, He that made them, v. 4. said, For this cause shall a man leave father, &c. And indeed the law of disclosing of Nakednesses, or of Fornication, Act. 15( i.e. the prohibition of all conjunctions, but that of the one husband and one wife) being one of the Precepts vulgarly known among them by that title of the Precepts of the sons of Adam, to which Moses there, and Christ here might most properly refer, I cannot discern any reason or place of doubting, 
All Divorces but one unlawful by the first institution.  but that this great conjugal Law, was the Law( though not of Nature, yet) of the first Creation, wherein all mankind was concerned, and so that by it all those Divorces were prohibited.  
To which I may add, That it is one of the sentences of Ben Syra a Jew, 
The Jews ●onfession.  {αβγδ} Gnaw the bone which hath fallen to thy lot; which the Comment set out by Paulus Fagius applies peculiarly to this matter, and concludes that he dothill, if he put her away, though she be ill, i.e. that every fault of the wife doth not subject her to this severity or excision: Which, though it be no evidence of the practise of the Jews, which 'tis known was contrary; yet it is an argument, that the sober and wise men, even among them, to whom this dispensation was given, had no honourable opinion of it.  
The case standing thus among the Jews, and some dispensation of the Primogenial law being allowed them, or rather, by the temper of the people, and the obstinacy of the disease, and for the relief of the oppressed hated wife, extorted from the Law-giver, 
Christs dealing in this matter.  Christ comes from heaven to the review and reformation of this, among other laws, and in direct opposition to what had been said among the Jews in this matter, Mat. 5.31. i. e. to the liberty allowed them, he pronounceth for the future to them and all other Christians, that whosoever makes use of that indulgence, puts away his wife, save for( that one crime of) fornication, he causeth her to commit adultery, i.e. gives her the strongest temptation imaginable, betrays her to the utmost hazard of doing it, and, as S. Luke adds in his reciting of that passage, Luk. 16.18. If he marrieth another( as in all probability he designs to do, when he thus puts away the first upon such dislikes) he committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her that is divorced, 
A threefold adultery in it.  committeth adultery. A threefold complicated adultery the effect of such an unlawful Divorce, and second marriage attending it.  
And so again, Mat. 19.9. and Mar. 10.6. the same words are, on another occasion, again repeated. Two places of such clearness and perspicuity( one cause of divorce allowed the Christians, that great breach of the conjugal Vow, and whosoever divorces and marries again, save in that one case punctually name, committeth adultery) that as no Paraphrase can make them more intell gible: so there is but one question that can reasonably be started in them, viz. 
The onely question, Whether after Divorce for fornication it be lawful to mary again.  Whether he that puts away his wife on this one authentic cause, be so perfectly freed from the conjugal Vow and bands, that he may lawfully, by the same laws both of God to the sons of Adam, and of Christ to his followers, mary some other woman, and some other man mary that divorced adulterous wife.  
The occasion of this doubt the variety of the words, 
The occasion of this question.  wherein this speech of Christs is expressed in the Gospels. For as Mat. 19.9. the words are, that Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for fornication, and shall mary another, committeth adultery; and he that shall mary her that is put away, committeth adultery: which are favourable to the affirmative, That it is lawful for him in that one excepted case, to mary again: so Mar. 10.11. and Luk. 16.18. the exception is left out, and the words are the same in both, absolutely delivered, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.  
That these places, that in Matthew, on one side, and in the other two Evangelists, at least in S. Mark, on the other side, are a report of the same passage of story, and of the same part of Christs speech, appealing from the Mosaical permission, to the first Institution of marriage, there is no ground of making any Question. And therefore it follows, that one must be interpnted by the other, either S. Matthew by the other two, or the other two by S. Matthew.  
That Matthew should be interpnted by the other, 
Mark and Luke expound●d by Matthew.  the more explicit and large by the shorter and less explicit, seems not reasonable. And besides, it were not easily imaginable, what should become of those words in Matthew, both there and Mat. 5. [ except for fornication] if the full sense were expressed by Mark and Luke, without them: for though it be easy to conceive such words to be meant, when they are not expressed, yet it is not easy to conceive them not to be meant, when they are expressed.  
Whereas on the other side, that Mark should be interpnted by S. Matthew, this reasonable account may be given from the Context, 1. Because it being apparent by S. Matthew, both c. 5. and c. 19. that Christ did allow divorces in case of the wives committing fornication, S. Mark, in this whole passage, not mentioning any such thing, must yet necessary be presumed and interpnted to imply it: and then those words [ save for fornication] must be understood, or supposed as spoken and meant, though not expressed, v. 11. and if so, it will then be all one with S. Matthews reciting of it.  
And the purposed brevity of S. Mark ( whose Gospel was written after Matthews) will be a second reason to incline us to believe this; and accordingly 'tis manifest, that when the Pharisees form of question was, Whether it were lawful to put away the wife {αβγδ} for every cause? S. Mark( and S. Luke also) leaves out that clause, and proposes the question thus, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Where, as it is certain that the Pharisee speaking according to the then present doctrine of the Jews, and asking whether the Jewish divorces were not lawful, must consequently ask whether divorces for every cause, or many other besides fornication, were not lawful, though Mark, for brevity sake, rather intimate that( by saying that it was the Pharisees that asked, and asked tempting, v. 2. then) express it: so in Christs answer given more privately to the same matter, v. 10. the same must be implyed again, viz. that whosoever shall put away his wife for every cause, i.e. for any other cause beside fornication, and mary another, committeth adultery, and so in like manner he that marrieth her, i.e. her that is put away for any other such cause,( which is not, according to the first Institution, a just reason of dissolving the bond) committeth adultery also.  
That this is the meaning of Christs words, may 3. be farther proved by the nature of Divorce, which is the rescinding of the Conjugal Bands, and by one supposition common to Jews, and Christians, and Romans, and all, viz. that they which were duly divorced, might mary again: so of the Jewish divorced wife, Deut. 24.2. 'tis expressly said, she may mary another; and of the man, it is known that this was his onely end of putting away his wife in that place, that he might mary another, whom he liked better: and accordingly this is the form of Divorce in Misna, Tit. Gittin, Behold thou art {αβγδ} free, or, at liberty for any man, and this is the Bill of Divorce between me and thee, so that it is free for thee to mary {αβγδ} to any man thou wilt. And so every where in their writings on this subject. And among the Romans there is no question of it. And this being thus known of the Jews, and presumed by Christ, yet all that he chargeth with Adultery in the Jewish Ceremony, is their putting away for causes not allowed in the institution of marriage. And in opposition to that onely, he proposeth his reformation, defining what is the due {αβγδ} or cause of Divorce, upon which a man may( as upon any other he may not) freely divorce, still presuming that he that divorceth, may also without Adultery mary again.  
If this be the meaning of the words in the Evangelists, as these circumstances make it probable to be, then the question is answered, that in such a divorce, allowed both in the first ins●itution, and by Christ himself, there lies no interdict, or hindrance against that mans marrying again, though in all other cases there doth.  
And yet on the other side it may be argued, 
Arguments on the other side.  that although, in the Mosaical Law, Divorce was the rescinding the Conjugal bands, to which it was consequent, as long as the Jewish policy lasted, that they that were duly divorced( as in the one case of fornication it is acknowledged) might freely mary again: yet in the acceptation of our Christian Courts, Divorce appears not to be any more, then the solemn, Judicial separation from conjugal society: For that Adultery which is a sufficient cause of Divorce, is yet( though a breach of the conjugal vow) no actual dissolution or voiding of the conjugal bands, among us Christians, may seem probable by these two Evidences, 1. Because Adultery committed by the husband, dissolves not marriage, which yet it equally should, if that fault committed, and not the sentence of Divorce, rescinded the conjugal band. For though the superiority of the husband over the wife, makes some difference, in respect of which it is acknowledged, That she cannot put away her husband; yet would that be of no force in this matter, supposing that Adultery were a dissolution of the bands, for then she ceasing to be bound, as a wife, would also cease to be inferior or subject to him. And in this a difference is observable between the Jews and us; for in case of Fornication, the Jew expected no sentence of the Consistory, but the man might put her away, give her from himself a Bill of Divorce, which hath never been allowed among Christians. 2. Because if this were so, if Adultery in the wife dissolved the bands, then the husband, that after the wives Adultery continued to live with her conjugally, must be concluded to commit fornication with her, the validity of those bands being it( and nothing else) which makes conjugal society lawful, and honourable, and acceptable in the sight of God.  
And agreeable to this arguing, it may be considered, 
The opinion of the Church.  what hath been defined in the Church of former ages, {αβγδ}, &c. Can. Apost. 48. If any La●ck put away his wife, and mary another, or mary a woman which hath been put away by another, let him be excommunicate. So in the council of Arles, An. Ch. 314. De his qui con●uges suas in adulterio deprehendunt,& iidem sunt adolescentes fideles,& prohibentur nubere, placuit ut in quantum posset, consilium iis detur ne viventibus uxoribus suis, licet adulteris, alias accipiant, Can. 10. They that deprehend their wives in adultery, and are beleiv●s, and young men, and are forbid to mary, 'tis decreed that counsel be given them, that as far as may be they mary not others, whilst their wives, though they be adulteresses, live: Where, both counsel is given them not to mary, and a reference made to some former Canons, where such marriage was forbidden. So in the Milevitan council, where S. Augustine was present, An. Ch. 402. It is decreed, ut secundum Evangelicam& Apostolicam doctrinam neque dimissus ab uxore, neque dimissa à marito, alteri conjungantur, said ita maneant, aut sibimet reconcilientur, That according to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine, neither the man that is dismissed from his wife, nor the woman that is dismissed from her husband mary any body else, but either remain unmarried, or be reconciled to one another. So in the Codex Can. Eccl. African. Can. 102. {αβγδ}. That they that are divorced from husbands or wives, should remain unmarried. What hath thus been defined by these Canons, is evidently received into the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of this Church, which therefore decrees, that when Divorces are pronounced, monitio& prohibitio fiat, ut à partibus ab invicem seg●egatis castè vivatur, nec ad alias nuptias alterutrâ vivente convoletur: admontion and prohibition be given, That they that are thus partend live chastened, that neither mary whilst the other lives. constit. Eccl. An. Dom. 1597.  
In this difficulty thus argued on both sides, the Resolution, 
The Resolution.  I suppose, will be made by these propositions, 1. That by the force of Christs words in all the Evangelists, he that marries again after any kind of divorce, but that one for fornication, doth commit an unchristian sin; and that at least of a double Adultery, one in taking a new wife, whilst the former l●veth( which is formally adulterous) the other in deserting( and denying the duty of marriage to) the rejected wife of his youth, which may be causally adultery in her, and in the mean while is an injustice joined with wandring lust. Secondly, That by the force of the arguments first produced for the interpreting Mark and Luke, by Mat. 19.5. it may be probably concluded, That in that one case of divorce for fornication, the marriage of the innocent party shall not be adulterous. Thirdly, That although this be granted, yet the words of Mark and Luke, and especially the words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.39. do give such prejudices against marriages after divorce indefinitely, that the Ancient Canons of the Church of God, and the constitutions of our English Reformation, have thought fit not to permit such liberty in any kind.  
And this may appear, if we now review, and consider the temper observed in the recited Canons: First, it is with an [ in quantum possint, consilium iis detur, as far as they can, let them be counseled.] And[ monitio& prohibitio fiat, admonition and prohibition joined together.] And our Constitution adds, Denique quò illud firmiùs observetur, sententia separationis non antea pronunciabitur, quàm qui eam postulaverint, cautionem fidejussoriam sufficientem interposuerint se contra monitionem& prohibitionem nihil commissuros, That this may be more firmly observed, the Decree of Separation shall not be pronounced, till they that demand it, shall put in sufficient band that they will do nothing against the admonition and prohibition. And if this be not observed by the Judge, he is to be punished, and the sentence of Divorce for such defect, declared voided, Constit. Eccl. An. D. 1597. Which manner of proceeding prescribed by the Canon, 1. By way of monition and counsel, which differs from divine Precept: 2. By requiring a bond for the observing the monition( which useth not to be required, when the divine Law distinctly commands obedience) do seem to infer that this marriage after a Christian divorce, is not looked upon by the Church as an adulterous Commission, but rather as a matter of dangerous consequence, if it should be permitted.  
'tis true, some of the Ancients speaking of this matter, seem to say, that these second marriages are against Scripture, contra Scripturam quidem fecerunt, saith Origen. Those Bishops which, extra Scripturam, without authority of Scripture permitted a woman to mary, while the former husband lived, have indeed done contrary to Scripture. And Athenagoras in his {αβγδ}. The Christians are commanded either to remain single, {αβγδ}, or to be content with one marriage, affirming the second to be {αβγδ}, a handsomer better sort of adultery; and this on force of Christs words, that he that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. And Innocent the first Bishop of Rome, Qui interveniente repudio, alii se matrimonio copularunt, in utraque parte adulteros esse manifestum est, &c. They that after divorce join themselves to some other marriage, it is manifest they are adulterers on both sides, according to that which we read in the Gospel, He that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery. But of these and the like testimonies it may be observed, that most of them belong not to those Divorces, which are in case of fornication, but( proportionably to Christs words in S. Mark) to those which according to the Jewish or Imperial laws, were allowed, in other cases, then what either Christ or the Primogenial Institution of marriage had allowed of. Of these we have reason to interpret many passages of the Ancients, sometimes in reference to the Imperial, sometime to the Mosaical practise of greater liberty. Of the former sort are those words of the first Laodicean Canon, {αβγδ}, they that are freely and lawfully joined in second marriages, i.e. after such Divorces as are legal by the Roman practise and laws, but not by the law of Christ. And so in the Nicene, and Ancyrane, and Neo-caesarean councils. Of the latter are the forecited words of S. jerome, l. 1. advers. Jovinian. From the beginning of the world we used not Divorces; where it is evident by the precedent words [ eloquium Salvatoris, our Saviours command] that he was to be understood in opposition to the Mosaical indulgence of greater liberty, not to the Christian in that one case. And of these it is evident, and confessed by all Christians, that the marriages after such divorces are adulterous, but not so of those other marriages of the innocent parties after those other divorces in that one case of adultery. Nay even some Canons have been made with this temperament expressly [ Except in the case of fornication,] So in the second Canon of the council of Vannes, Eos qui relictis uxoribus suis, sicut in Evangelio dicitur, exceptâ causâ fornicationis, sine adulterii probatione alias duxerint, statuimus, &c. They that have left their own wives, as it is said in the Gospel, except for cause of fornication, and without proof of adultery, shall have married others, we judge them, &c.  
Having thus said thus much for the satisfying this difficulty: One advantage, I suppose, may be made of it, before we proceed any farther toward the explaining the meaning of S. Pauls Canon, or direction to Timothy, 1 Tim. 3. and 5. for the choice of Bishops and Widows, 
S. Pau●s Canon of the Bishop and Widow.  that the Bishop be the husband of one wife, and the Widow be the wife of one husband, viz. that in both places it be taken in the same sense, in a notion of second marriages( differing both from the ordinary Bigamy and Digamy) of those that having put away thei● wives, or being separated from their husbands, on any cause whatsoever, whether Jewish, Roman, or Christian, have married again.  
To this purpose it must be observed, that the having or living with more wives at once, 
Th●ee sorts of second marriages.  cannot be the thing there meant, because the interdict lying equally to the Bishop and to the Widow, 
Having two at once.  this sense is not appliable to her, because it was never permitted by any law either of Jews or Romans( nor is it since by the Mahomedan●s themselves) that a woman should have and live with two husbands at once. As for the Barbarians, among whom there is mention of {αβγδ}, a people where the women had many husbands, and so the Medes that dwelled in the mountains, among whom 'tis said a woman had five husbands at once, these are too extravagant to be referred to by the Apostle, in that interdict.  
And for the ordinary Digamy, the marrying a second after the decease of the former, 
A second after the decease of the first.  that that should be so reproachful or blamable in any, as to render one uncapable of holy Orders( which they are capable of, which have been guilty of some faults) this is not imaginable neither; It being ordinary for the wife to die soon after marriage, and without bearing of children, and in that case the second marriage tending as much to the ends of the Institution, as the former can be excusable to do. And accordingly this Prohibition is not to be found in the laws of any Nation, and the Apostle is elsewhere clear, that when the husband is dead, the woman is free to mary another man, Rom. 7.3. And accordingly Clemens Alexandrinus, storm. l. 4. speaking of the great reward of those that do {αβγδ}, mary no more after the death of the first wife, doth yet aclowledge, that if he marries again {αβγδ} he doth not sin against the covenant, {αβγδ}, for there is no prohibition of this by law, onely, saith he, he doth not attain to that {αβγδ} highest perfection of the Evangelical course, the very same which would be affirmed of never marrying at all, which is not commanded any, but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection.  
Whereas this third notion will be very agreeable to the places, 
Marrying after an unlawful Divorce.  meaning this marriage after a divorce, This he that had been guilty of, by human Laws, either of Jews or Romans, was under no censure, but by the Apostles direction is not thought fit to be received into holy Orders. As the High-Priest among the Jews might not be a Polygamist, might not divorce and mary again, nor mary one that was divorced, though other men were permitted to do all these. And of this the women, and so the widows, were capable, as well as the men: 
Women leaving their husbands.  Salome the sister of Herod the son of Antipater, gave a bill of Divorce to Custabarus the Praefect of Idumaea and Gaza, but this {αβγδ}, contrary to the Jewish laws, saith Josephus, l. 15. c. 11. And so Herodias, Philips wife, as may be gathered out of Josephus, Ant. l. 18. c. 7. And of the marrying of those that were put away by their husbands, the Canons make frequent mention.  
Of this sex, saith Seneca de Benefic. l. 3. c. 16. Numquid jam ulla repudio erubescit? Is any woman now ashamed of leaving her husband? And, Nobiles foeminae non consulum numero, said maritorum annos suos computant, they married and departed, and married again every year. So Plutarch in his {αβγδ} mentions the marrying of women, whose husbands were living; and the same appears by Justinian, Novel. 117. And among the grecians {αβγδ} is the word for it.  
Among Christians( though by Christs law the wife might not put away the man, 
Divorces practised among Christians.  nor, except in one case, the man the woman: yet some examples of the practise of it, by the consent of parties, are to be met with; as appears by Marculfus his formula, l. 2. c. 30. directly to this purpose, Dum inter illum& illam non charitas secundum Deum, said discordia regnat.— placuit &c. Seeing between him and her the charity according to God doth not reign, but discord, so that they cannot live peaceably together, it is agreed by the consent of both, that they separate from one another, and accordingly they have done. A formula used among Christians, as there is another, Leg. Rom. c. 19. and Novel. Institut. 117.  
And being thus practised, the 
Can 116. in Zonaras's account.  council of Carthage thought fit to make a Canon to reform it, and therefore appointed that the Emperor should be desired to enact an Imperial Law against it; and so doth the Milevitan council, Can. 17. And accordingly one of the Presbyters that were brought to witness against Marcellinus being found to have married after a divorce, placuit reprobari, saith Aerodius, 
Pandect. re●. judicat. l. 6. Tit. 1. c. 18.  he was rejected.  
To this sense, I conceive, the like directions given both by the Author of the Constitutions, and in the Apostolical Canons do belong. In the Constitutions, they are thus enlarged, {αβγδ}, Such an one ought the Bishop to be, one that hath been the husband of one wife, and that wife the wife of one husband, i.e. that he that is thought fit to be chosen Bishop, shall be one that hath never married another wife whilst his former liveth; and in like manner, that he shall not mary any woman, that hath partend with a former husband: so as {αβγδ} shall be all one with {αβγδ} {αβγδ} in the 48. Apostolical Canon, she that hath not been put away.  
In the Apostolical Canon the words are more perspicuous, {αβγδ}, He that is joined in two marriages after Baptism, or hath a concubine, cannot be a Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or of any sacred Order. Where the second marriage being proportionable to having a concubine, must in reason be the having two wives living at a time, onely one of them put away from him. Of this matter the Reader may see Zonaras on the 116 Canon of the council of Carthage, Radolphus Fornerius Rerum quotidian. l. 6. c. 23. Burchard. l. 9. c. 72. and Christ. Justellus from the Notes of Jacobus Leschasserius, on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae. But this by the way.  
Having gone thus far, I should soon be at an end of my guesses, were there not some pretensions of other men, who like not to have their liberties retrenched, though by Christ himself, which may deserve to be a while considered. And the considering of them will be the most ingrateful part of this task; yet that which must be undergone, lest, having offered their reasons and exceptions against the Doctrine of the Church, and expressly of Christ himself, they be permitted to that dangerous temptation, of thinking themselves successful in the attempt, and so that prove to some men a more persuasive reason to believe their wishes, then any yet hath been produced.  
The first open attempt that I remember that way, 
A Plea for Divorces.  was made in a Discourse purposely on that subject, and presented to the Parliament, at the beginning of these licentious times; and the special artifice made use of, was that, of bringing back Christ unto Moses, of interpreting the restraint laid on this matter in the New Testament, by analogy with the Judaical permission in the Old. After the same manner, as when the municipal Laws of a kingdom are thought fit to be reduced to( and interpnted) by the fundamental; which is, by interpretation, as when the whole pile or fabric being taken down, and not one ston left upon another, the appeal is made by resort to the first foundations, which lying under the ground, and in the dark, will be more easily persuaded either to be or to appear, whatsoever we wish they should.  
How rational a procedure this is in other matters, 
The Answers to it.  I have no temptation to inquire. Onely to the business of divorces it must be observed, how much more unreasonably it is pretended, then in the parallel, of human Laws.  
For first, the Law of Moses to the Jews was not the fundamental law of all mankind, or that wherein all, or indeed any but they, were concerned. And 2. this particular of divorces being not a preceptive law, but a permissive, a law of special dispensation affixed to a former obligatory law, was, if we believe Christ, directly contrary to that, by which, those Jews, with all men had formerly been regulated. And then 3. Christs superadditions in this matter are so far from being interpretable by, or reducible to that supposed foundation, that, as was said, they are directly and purposely opposed to it. It is impossible that words should be more explicit and distinct, Mat. 5.31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say unto you, that, whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, &c. And c. 19.9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for the cause of fornication, and shall mary another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery.  
Is it possible this artifice could have been more providently foreseen and prevented by Christ? 
Christs doctrine against Divorces.  Under Moses they might put away upon dislikes, founded in the matter of Nakedness: Under Christ they must not, save in the one case of Fornication: Under Moses, the man that had given a bill of divorce, might mary another; but under Christ, if he do so, he committeth adultery: Under Moses the woman that had the Bill might go, and mary any man else, except that former husband, v. 4. and the High-Priest, Lev. 21.7. but under Christ, if she do, she commits adultery, and he that marries her commits adultery; and though she do not mary, yet he that pulls her away, being unable to give her liberty of marrying another, doth, as much as in him lies, cause her to commit adultery. And then sure, 'tis but seasonable to invert our Saviours speech, What man shall dare join, what God hath, thus widely, put asunder?  
The onely colour of ground for this pretention[ viz. that Christ in the Sermon on the mount makes no addition to the Mosaical Law, 
The opinion of Christs adding nothing to Moses.  and therefore that here he doth not in this of divorces] hath in 
Note on Pract. Cat. l. 2. §. 3. p. 106, 107, 108.  other papers been evidenced from all Antiquity to be a false ground. And yet( to see the luck of it) if it should be acknowledged a true one, it would presently destroy the whole pretention: For then it must follow, that there was as much interdicted in Moses, as is now forbidden by Christ; and thence again, that the obscure words of Moses did really contain, what the plain words of Christ do certainly express, and then that the matter of nakedness there, must be interpnted by {αβγδ} or fornication here. And then the result will be, that even among the Jews under Moses's permission, those divorces for any other inferior causes were not permitted, which is the direct contradictory to that, which is pretended to be deduced from this way of probation.  
For, of the opinion of those that think Christ added nothing to the law of Moses, this is observable; That, to give it some colour of truth or probability, they have been forced to affirm that Christs whole design in that Sermon on the mount, was to vindicate and rescue the law of Moses from the Pharisees glosses, and onely to restore it to the primitive perfection and lustre, that it had before it was so maimed and clouded by those Doctors: which if it be true, then must that of permitting divorces, in other cases beside that of fornication, be onely a gloss of the Pharisees, and not the truth of the Mosaical Law; which, as long as it is granted, is the utter undoing of that plea for this liberty founded in, and deduced from the Mosaical Law.  
To conclude, It is necessary by all laws of discourse, that Christ being to vindicate the law of Moses from false interpretations, that vindication of Christs should be received as the interpretation of the law of Moses, that was so misinterpreted, and not the law of Moses be the interpreter of Christs vindication; It being an axiom known to all, that the latter, and more perspicuous, must be the interpreter of the former, more obscure, and not the former, and the darker be set blindly to interpret the latter and more perspicuous, The authentic paraphrase being the comment on the text, and not the obscurer text on the paraphrase.  
Another course of avoiding the force, and perspicuity of our Saviours words, 
Mr. Seldens attempt in this matter.  hath been taken by Mr. Selden in his Uxor Hebraica l. 3. 23. which it will not be amiss to survey a while, as distinctly, as my designed brevity will permit.  
The first part of the attempt is to dispose the reader, 
His preparations to if.  and bring him to make some doubt or question, what is the meaning of those plain words of Christ,[ {αβγδ}, Saving for the cause of fornication] and[ {αβγδ}, except for fornication] And that is endeavoured by these ways, First, by mentioning it as an 
Difficultas maxima quâ cruciari solent heie Scriptores. p. 479.  huge difficulty, which is wont to torment writers on this subject. Secondly, by rendering two notions of the word Fornication among Christian writers, frequently in use, one belonging to the unmarried, the other to the married, and then( because in the former of these notions it cannot be taken, unless it denote some act committed before marriage) inquiring whether among any Authors, either more ancient, or contemporary with the Evangelists, {αβγδ} do manifestò& palam, manifestly and openly signify adultery, as that is signanter, Simply and Specifically the violation of marriage. In this inquiry first he finds the word used in Demosthenes for that which is not to be name, in Philo for prostitution; but he supposes no man to think this applicable to this matter. Secondly, then he finds in Hesychius& the Etymologist {αβγδ}, and so,( that which was designed not to be found) fornication for adultery. 
Horum uterque recentio●es sunt nec veterum ante, seu sub Christi tempora usum omnino probaent, aliter atque patres Christiani Christi in ●erris tempore saeculis aliquot recentiores, quibus pro adulterio admittitur, usurpaturque. p. 481.  But these, saith he, are recentiores, later writers, and do not prove the use of the word among the ancients before or about Christs time, any more then the fathers of the Christian Church, which are also later then Christs being here on earth, who use it and understand it for adultery. To this, thirdly, he adds, that it is strange that Matthew should in both places use {αβγδ} fornication, and not {αβγδ} adultery, which yet in both places Christ uses immediately after these words; and there being a third place in Matthew wherein both these words are used together, Mat. 15.19. He observes fourthly, that the Syriack reads {αβγδ} adultery onely. Fifthly, he supposes it acknowledged by all, that the same words are wont to be diversly used in respect of the diversity of matters. Sixthly, he adds, that among the several opinions that were at that time abroad, there was no one of this sort, that there was no place for divorces, save in case of adultery; The several opinions being reducible to three heads, first that of Hillel, that the husband might divorce for any cause, yet not meaning his own bare will: secondly, that of Sammai, for somewhat of turpitude onely: thirdly, that of Aquiba, that he might do it on his own will for whatsoever he pleased. Nay seventhly, that adultery was to be punished by death, and so not by divorce. Eighthly, that the Pharisees consulted Christ temptingly and treacherously, and yet, that as soon as Christ had thus answered them, they were so satisfied, that they opposed not a word, which 'tis scarce credible they should do, if his answer had been so new and unheard of, distant from all the three opinions known among them; Nay that the disciples seem not so to understand his answer as if it were any such new doctrine, but such as; though rejected by the most, was yet defended by others the Scholars of Sammai and his followers. Ninthly, That it is not evident enough by Christs express words, whether the cause of fornication do not belong to the husband also, and not onely to the wife, that if he were guilty, or 
{αβγδ} propensi●s fieret reus.  in danger of being guilty of fornication through her contumacies or molestations, this were sufficient for a divorce. Upon these praemises having sufficiently prepared the Readers inclinations, he then proceeds to a through examination of the matter by reducing all to three Quaeres.  
But before I proceed to them, I shall reflect a while upon this {αβγδ} or preparative velitation which I have thus largely and punctually set down, that it may appear what solidity there is like to be in that pretention, which was thus to be usherd in.  
And first it is visible to all, that this which he makes a question of, and calls it a greatest difficulty, which writers on this Subject have been tormented with, is indeed no such matter, but that all the Christian writers of any note from Christs time to this, have uniformly resolved that Christs words of divorce do belong to that one case of fornication in the wife. None ever doubting but that {αβγδ} doth there signify sins of uncleanness; Onely some extending it, farther then adultery, to unnatural and incestuous commissions, which, it is certain, 
{αβγδ} not Adultery onely.  are called {αβγδ} also, and being of so high a nature, may well be thought fit to be comprehended in Christs words, and not adultery onely.  
This will anon appear on occasion of some testimonies produced out of Bede and others, by Mr. Se●den, to which we shall 
§. 81.  then join that passage of St. Augustine in his Retractations, by whom indeed it is said to be latebrosissima quaestio& scrupulosissima disputatio, a very obscure and scrupulous question, not, whether for other causes except that one, a Christian might divorce, but, whether that one contain not other acts of fornication besides adultery.  
Secondly, then for the use of this word {αβγδ} Signanter, Simply and Specifically for adultery, i.e. I suppose, so as to exclude all other sorts of uncleanness, there is no need to produce any testimonies, of such ancient writers; If it be more largely extended, in like manner, as it is Acts 15. in the Apostles Canon, to incests and unnatural sins &c. this is not it, wherein the controversy consists. And therefore for the notions of it in Demosthenes for paederastia or unnatural filthiness, and the like also, but somewhat more indefinitely, in Philo, if they be here taken in, it will no way advantage Mr. Seldens praetensions, which are for some softer notion of {αβγδ}, then the Christian Writers bestow on it, and that from Demosthenes and Philo. cannot be pretended.  
Mean-while it is not obvious to conjecture, why, when it is by him acknowledged, that among the 
Apud Christianos v●t res, p. 4●0. l. 8.  ancient Christians {αβγδ} is used for adultery, and so in the 
Oneirocriticis-Graecè said à Christiano aevi inferioris redditis, aliisque ejusmodi. Ib. l. 12.  Christian Translator of Achmet, and others the like, and indefinitely in the 
Patres Christiani. p 481. lin. ult.  Christian fathers, none excepted, this should not be thought a competent means of judging what the Evangelist meant by {αβγδ}, but that it should be sought out of Demosthenes and Philo, rather then found in the universal undoubted use of Christian Writers. This cannot but be looked on as a symptom of some significancy, that what was to be maintained by those means, is of such a nature, as, if the whole Christian Church might be headed, could never be owned or believed by us.  
And therefore when Hesychius( and also the Etymologist) have affirmed distinctly that {αβγδ} doth signify {αβγδ}, an adulterer, what an injustice is it, first causelessly to despise, and without any account or contrary affirmation of any other, simply to cast off the authority of that most excellent Grammarian, which is of all other Glossaries acknowledged by learned men, to have a peculiar propriety to the explicating of the sacred dialect, and then to reject in the same period all the Christian Fathers also, by saying that Hesychius and the Etymologist do no more prove the use of the word before or under Christ, then the Christian Fathers( no one, it seems, fit to be excepted) are able to do? This again visibly sets this pretention in competition, and contention with the whole Christian world beside, and that is no very excellent character of the meekness, nor presage of the truth of it.  
This being thus premised, it is now far from strange, that S. Matthews Greek should make use of {αβγδ} fornication, and not of {αβγδ}, adultery, the reason being visible, because {αβγδ} was wider, and comprehended those other sins of Incest, &c. which as well as simplo adultery, were just causes of divorce, and that {αβγδ} adultery was not fit to do. And if Mat. 15. in stead of fornication and adultery, the Syriack hath used {αβγδ} onely, this can signify nothing to me, but that either they have omitted a word, which they should have expressed, or used a comprehensive word to signify both; or by naming adultery, by parity of reason, or à fortiori, left the other to be understood also.  
And when 'tis added, that by the difference of the matter, words receive their different significations: as I aclowledge the truth of that, so I think it very competent to infer, that {αβγδ} being used of a married couple, must in reason signify adultery, as that notes an offence against the marriage-bed and vow, and not any inferior crime or infirmity, which is not such.  
As for the next branch of his discourse, which would render it improbable that {αβγδ} should signify adultery,( because, there being three opinions of divorces among the Jews of that time, this of the unlawfulness to divorce, save onely for fornication, was none of these three) I suppose, the answer will be unquestionable, that Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, setting his commands in opposition to what had been formerly said among the Jews, did either add new precepts and interdicts to those that were before in force among them, or else vindicated the old Commandments, from the false opinions and glosses of men. And then it will be very unreasonable to oblige Christ to follow the known opinion of any sort of rabbins among them, at that time when he opposes his doctrine to all that had been formerly said by them. And why may not Christ reasonably reject the interpretations and indulgences of men, of whatever Jewish School they were, as well as retrench the indulgence given by Moses from God( as in this matter it is apparent he doth, Mat. 19.8. Moses permitted— but from the beginning it was not so: and, But I say unto you, v. 9.) or pronounce of the Sanhedrin universally, that they made voided the Commandments of God by their Traditions, Mar. 7.13.  
That Adultery was among the Jews, by their law, to be punished with death, is willingly granted; but that concession is far from inferring, That it was not reasonable in Christ to disallow all other divorces for lesser or lower causes. For 1. At this time wherein the Pharisees speak to him, the capital punishments were taken from the Jews, and the Sanhedrin confess it is not lawful for them to put any man to death, Joh. 18.31. In regard whereof they brought the adulteress to Christ, Joh. 8.3. as thinking to have ensnared him by that also. 2. It was not necessary when the Mosaical polity was abolished, that all Christians to whom Christs words indifferently belonged, should enact the same Judicial Laws, that were in force among the Jews, nor consequently, that adultery should every where be death, though in Judaea it were. 3. Christs affirming that there was no cause competent for divorce but one, doth no way prejudge the punishing that one with heavier punishment then divorce. And 4. there is no reason imaginable, why Christ that thought adultery so much a greater offence against the marital vow, then other faults or causes were, for which the Jews ordinarily divorced, should, by omitting to specify that, leave us to conclude that there was no crime at all, for which it was lawful to divorce. For supposing any to be such, certainly adultery, which was so great a contrariety to the conjugal vow, and injury to the husband, as to be punished with death,( that highest degree of divorce, Excision irreversible, not from his flesh onely, but from the ●arth) might deserve to be deemed such.  
Next: for the Pharisees being so satisfied with his answer, that they opposed not a word, It is far from inferring that his answer agreed with some one of the three doctrines of their rabbis. For 1. if it be but remembered, what is by the objecter truly suggested, that they came insidiously to question him, then, as their intention to ensnare him by this question, is an evidence, that they believed his doctrine in this matter( delivered in the Sermon on the Mount) to be contrary to the liberty which they had by Moses,( for else how could this be a tempting, i.e. an ensnaring question?) so the more contrary his answer was to their received doctrine; yea, and to the doctrine which they were taught from Moses, the greater matter of satisfaction that would be to their design of treachery. The more liable he were supposed to have rendered himself to their Laws and Censures, the less need was there of questioning him any farther. As at another time, Mat. 12. where it is said expressly, that they asked him a question that they might accuse him, v. 10. upon his answer they return not a word to him( and yet sure were not satisfied with him any otherwise, then as having now matter of an accusation against him: for it follows v. 14. that they went out and took counsel against him that they might put him to death.) So again Mat. 26. the High-Priest that insidiously examined him, upon his affirming that he was the Christ, v. 64. answers, not by opposing, or questioning him any farther, but by addressing his speech to the Sanhedrin, What need we any farther witnesses? behold, ye have now heard his blasphemy. Which yet is far from concluding that speech of Christ, that he was the messiah, to contain no more in it, then some Sect of their rabbins affirmed concerning him.  
Nay 2. the reason and evidence, with which Christ spake, might be, and certainly was such, that the most contrary-minded had nothing to oppose. As it is elsewhere said, that they could not resist the power with which he spake. And then certainly it will be a weak argument to infer, that some sort of devils taught that God onely was to be worshipped( or that the speech of Christ, Mat. 4.11. was agreeable to the doctrine of some of those learneder rabbis) because upon that answer of Christ, the devil had nothing to oppose, but immediately departed from him.  
Nay 3. it may most reasonably be resolved by way of retortion of this argument, that there being three opinions of the Jews at that time, one from Hillel, the most received, the second from Sammai, that had fewer followers, the third of Aquiba: if Christ had taken part with that number of men, which were then less favoured by all, and particularly by the Pharisees that questioned him, his authority could not have prevailed so far, as to persuade them presently to deposit their opinion, and in stead of treacherous enemies, to become obedient Converts to his Doctrine; and yet( after all this being thus prodigiously satisfied) never to give any word of acknowledgement that they were so.  
As for the disciples, that they do not seem to understand his answer so, as if it were any new doctrine, but as that, which was rejected by some, but defended by others: It is affirmed without any show of reason. For 1. in the Sermon on the Mount, if it were new, yet it was agreeable with other precedent parts of that Sermon, which were new also, and they which were disciples of Christ, and believed him to be sent from God, could believe what he said, without having the assistance of Sammai, or other Jew to countenance it. And besides, that coming in the body of his Sermon( of all which they were silent auditors) how new soever they thought it, we cannot expect from them any expression of it. And for that Mat. 19. to which I suppose Mr. Selden refers, it is pretty evident, 1. That they had heard it before from him on the Mount, and so that it was not now perfectly new to them: and 2. That their objection against it doth not argue that they took it for an old doctrine, for say they, If this be the case of an husband with his wife, it is profitable not to mary, v. 10. which( by the way) would have been very causelessly objected by them, if as Sammai had taught, so Christs speech had been understood to extend no farther; That turpitude in the greatest latitude and comprehension of the word, was of a competent width, and by being allowed a just cause of divorce, would not have concluded the conditions of that band of marriage very strict, or unsupportable.  
Lastly, it is a causeless exception against the words, or style of Christ or the Evangelist, to pretend it not evident enough by Christs express words, whose fornication it is( the mans or the womans) which is there specified: for certainly it is most evident, and never before doubted of by any, but that as the {αβγδ}, the every cause or accusation preceding, was somewhat disliked or accused in the woman, and not in the husband himself, who would not probably be his own accuser, so the fornication was to be conceived in the woman also, and if it be not expressly said [ for her fornication] that pronoun is certainly spared, because no ordinary Reader could make doubt of understanding it thus, and so that expressness or punctuality was unnecessary.  
Having now done with the apparatus, or lighter, I shall proceed to the weightier part of his impression, and( because he is pleased to advice others to inquire, and examine the truth of his pretensions) it will not be unseasonable to follow his steps, 
Mr. Seldens farther pretensions examined.  and observe what matter of conviction there is in all which is proposed by him.  
His first attempt is( supposing Matthew to have written, and Christ to have spoken either in Syriack or Hebrew) to examine the use both of the Syriack and Hebrew word, and from thence to collect a greater latitude of signification, then that it should be confined to fornication or adultery. If it were in Syriack, then, saith he, {αβγδ} was the word; if in Hebrew, {αβγδ} turpitude. For the first, the Syriack {αβγδ} is, saith he, agreeable to the Heb●ew {αβγδ}, and therefore must have the same lat●tude with the Hebrew; and that, saith he, signifies either primarily and strictly all lying together, which is not in lawful marriage; and that again either all kind of unlawful conjunctions, as in the stories of Dinah and Thamar; or else some particular sorts of that kind, of which adultery is but one of many: Or secondarily and more largely, all things that are called filthy, as that is opposed to honest, and on these he insists at large.  
For the former of them we need not to contend, not onely because, howsoever Christ spake, yet 'tis certain S. Matthew wrote not Syriack( and we have no way to guess of Christs words, or meaning, but by the expressions which the Evangelists have given us of them) but also because of Mr. Seldens concessions. For if that Syriack be agreeable to the Hebrew, and that primarily denote all manner of conjunctions but that in lawful marriage, it will be no way inconvenient for us to aclowledge, that Christ used that word in that sense, but plainly consequent thereto, that no divorce is now lawful, but that for fornication, as that signifies adultery or other such foul sin of uncleanness. The onely testimony here, of which he desires to make advantage, is that of Lev. 21.7. where the Priest is forbidden to take a wife which is a whore. There, saith he, the Hebrew {αβγδ} is by the ancient Jews defined to be any that is not an Israelitess, or which being an Israelitess, hath been joined in any interdicted marriage, or hath lain with any Profane person, whose marriage with her was not unlawful.  
To this affirmation out of the ancient Jews, I answer, That whosoever those ancient Jews were, I cannot think there is any truth in that, which is thus cited from them, that {αβγδ} which we render whore, should denote one that were onely not an Israelitess. For in the same verse, where he is forbidden to mary the {αβγδ}, he is also forbidden to mary the profane, and that sure is more probable then {αβγδ} to signify her, that is not an Israelitess. And of this I am sure, that the most excellent Paulus Fagius, and others most conversant in the Jewish Writers, interpret {αβγδ} an adulteress, or whore, in that place, and even the word profane may well belong to the same matter also, the whore being said to profane her self and her father, v. 9. and there {αβγδ} is the word for playing the whore.  
However this, if granted, will be impertinent to Christs interdict of Divorces, unless we believe that he made it lawful to put away a wife for not being an Israelitess,( and then every English woman must be put away) or for not being born of parents of the same true Religion. And then, as we know, the daughter may be of the true Religion, though the mother were not,( and so 'tis sure many children of heathens became Proselytes of the jews) so even of those wives that are not of the true Religion, but believers, or heathens, S. Paul is express, that if they will live with their husbands, they are not to put them away, 1 Cor. 7.12.  
Now for the secondary notion of the word {αβγδ}, that it signifies any deviation( at least heavier transgression) into any sins or turpitudes whatsoever, that he endeavours to prove from the frequent use of it for idolatry, fornicating after other gods, Exod. 34.15. and following of wizards, which is going a whoring after them, Lev. 20.6. and so the sins of the jews, and Sodomites, and Samaritans, Ezek. 16.51. are called often fornica●ion in that Chapter; and many the like. So Num. 14.33. Your children shall bear your whoredoms, is, saith he out of Onkelos, shall bear your iniquities. So Philo calls a vicious mind {αβγδ} a fornicating soul. So Wisd. 14.12. when 'tis said of the devising of Idols, that it is {αβγδ}, the beginning of fornication, on which saith Holkot, that the Scriptures use to call by the name of fornication, omnem illicitam corruptionem, all unlawful corruption, such is Idolatry, and Avaritia, Covetousness. So, saith he, S. Paul must be understood, when he calleth the foulest incest, Fornication, 1 Cor. 5.1. And so the Whore in the Revelation is one guilty of all kind of impiety. 
p. 494.  From all which he concludes, that if Christ spake Syriack, then the word expressed by {αβγδ}, fornication, may denote all kind of filthiness, seu quicquid {αβγδ} seu vitii nomine venerit, whatever comes under the name of naughtiness or 'vice, and then the conclusion is direct, for any such 'vice, Christ allows divorce, and not onely in case of fornication. And accordingly that {αβγδ} harlots, are joined with publicans, Mat. 21.32. as {αβγδ} sinners, Mat. 9.11. Mar. 2.16. Lu. 5.30.  
Now to all this endeavour the answer will be brief and evident, by observing but two things, which quiter take away all force of these testimonies. First, that the people of the jews, as since the Church of Christ, are figuratively and mystically said in Scripture to be espoused by God, married to himself, and consequently every degree of Idolatry or apostasy from him is, by the same figure, expressed by fornicating, or going a whoring, i.e. breaking that Covenant which they had made with God, resembled by God to a Marriage-Covenant. And there is nothing more ordinary then such figures as this in all manner of sacred and profane writings, which yet no way prejudge or hinder the use of the same word in the proper sense without any figure in it, but contrariwise suppose this acception of it for the violation of the marriage-bed, or else there could be no place for such metaphors.  
From hence therefore that which will be deducible is this, that where there is no place for the literal interpretation, there such figurative notions are to be admitted: as when Philo mentions the fornicating soul, or the Scripture, whoring after other Gods, there it must be taken in the figurative sense, because corporeal fornication is not incident to souls, or fastened to Gods or Idols. But when there is place for the proper or first sense, then what reason can there be to prefer, or substitute the figurative? And so it is visibly in Christs words, where the man puts away the wife for fornication. By this means five of the former testimonies are evidenced to be of no force, to infer the desired conclusion; that of Exod. 34. Lev. 20. Ezek. 16. Num. 14. of Philo, and perhaps a sixth, that out of the Revelation, if it be taken to signify any eminent Idolater or Apostate.  
But the second observation will conclude this matter, It is this, that in the Idol-feasts, and Sacrifices, and Worships, there was a great deal of uncleanness and unnatural filthiness committed, and consequently that filthiness is sometimes called Idol-worship itself, sometimes it is set as an effect of it, and this literally and properly without any figure. So when {αβγδ}( which is ordinarily rendered covetousness, but doth also signify any inordinate lust, Eph. 5.3. and is oft in the New Testament used in that sense) is said to be Idolatry, Col. 3.5. and Eph. 5.5. that is clearly the meaning of it, that those inordinate lusts were the way of their worshipping their false Gods. And thus in the forecited place of Wisd. 14.12. it is evidently to be understood, that {αβγδ}, the devising of Idols, is {αβγδ}, the beginning of fornication, or that which hath brought a great deal of abominable filthiness into the world; and accordingly it follows, {αβγδ}, the invention of Idols was the corrupting of life, in that notion wherein [ corrupting] is used for all such villainy, Deut. 4.16. and 2 Pet. 1.4. and 2.12, 19. and as in Philo, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ} are joined together as breaches of the seventh Commandment.  
And so that place of Holkot, taken out of Papias, is to be interpnted also, that fornication signifies {αβγδ}, all abominable villainy or corruption,( a cleanly expression of that which is not to be name) sicut est idololatria, such as is Idolatry, and avaritia, in the notion of {αβγδ}( not covetousness, as that sounds with us a love of money, but) inordinate lust, which is Idolatry.  
If there be any question of this interpretation of the words of Papias, or Holkot out of him, I suppose a plain place in the fragments of Polycarp's Epistle( who lived in the same age with Papias) will make it clear, where speaking of Valens, Elder of Philippi, and his having committed somewhat utterly unworthy of that Calling, by his example he admonishes others to abstain ab avaritiâ( that sure was in Greek {αβγδ} from unnatural lusts)& sint casti, and that they be chased; adding, that whosoever did not so abstain, ab idololatria coinquinabitur,& tanquam inter Gentes judicabitur, would be defiled by Idolatry, and judged as among the Gentiles, i.e. fall into that sort of sins for which the Gentiles are condemned, and of which the Apostle saith, {αβγδ}, Fornicators and adulterers God will judge.  
And by this may be understood also to how little purpose a like place is by 
p 556.  Mr. Selden produced out of Bede on the words in S. Matthew, Non hîc intelligigitur tantùm fornicatio in stupro, quod in alienis viris aut foeminis commi●titur, said omnis concupiscentia, vel avaritia, vel idololatria, quae hominem facit à lege Dei aberrare. Here is to be understood not onely that fornication in adultery, which is committed with others husbands or wives, but all concupiscence( not covetousness, but) inordinate lust( the note being taken out of some Greek Scholiast, which had {αβγδ}) or Idolatry, which makes a man err from the law of God. Where the [ all concupiscence] in the front is explained by the two latter, inordinate desire, and Idolatry, both denoting those filthinesses so ordinary among Idolaters. And accordingly it follows in Bede, Si uxor hujusmodi aliquid hominem cogat, If a wife bring her husband to such courses as these, seduce him into the heathen mysteries, qui talem dimittit, causâ fornicatio●is dimittit, he that puts her away, doth it for fornication, Illius, quia fornicatur, suae, ne fornicet, for her fornication already committed, and for his own, that he may not commit it. All which clearly belongs to the unclean commissions among the heathen worshippers, not to any other distant sin, contained under that title.  
Which indeed signifies it to be the sense of Bede, and of that Scholiast, that fornication in Christs words is to be extended( beyond that of adultery) to all unnatural filthiness, but not that it contains all other vices under it, as far distant from this, as love of money is from the lusts of the flesh, coveting the house, from defiling the bed, the worshipping the Idol-false-Gods, from the violation of the vow of wedlock, Impiety, from incontinence or impurity. Of the last and highest of which Idolatry or heathenism) as the Apostles opinion is given, 1 Cor. 7.12. that it is not a sufficient matter for divorce, so the text of[ {αβγδ}] which( by our rendering it, Be not unequally yok●d with unbelievers) may be thought to sound toward it, cannot without great impertinency be applied to that subject, for besides that it would rather hold against marrying such, then for Divorces after Marriage, it appears by the context to be spoken to the Corinthians in relation to their false teachers, the gnostics( elsewhere called {αβγδ} unbelievers) not to heathen idolatrous women: and the 
{αβγδ}, is trutina alterijugis, a balance weighing down one way, opposed to {αβγδ}, aequilibrated  {αβγδ} signifies onely too strong 
So in Clements Epistle to those Corinthians, {αβγδ}, inclining the other way, not to, but from the Apostles and Orthodox Christians.  inclinations of kindness which they had to such seducers, above the proportion which they allowed the Apostles, which converted them.  
What hath thus been cleared to be the sense of the words in Holkot and Bede, will, I suppose, be appliable to the place in S. Augustines Retractations, l. 1. c. 19. Cum velit Dominus intelligi fornicationem, proper quam liceat dimittere uxorem, utrum eam quae damnatur in stupris, an illam, de quâ dicitur, Perdidisti omnem qui fornicatur abs te, in quâ utique& illa est( neque enim non fornicatur à Domino, qui tollens membra Christi facit ea membra meretricis) etiam atque etiam cogitandum est, atque requirendum. When Christ affirms fornication to be the onely thing for which it is lawful to dismiss the wife, it must be considered and inquired diligently, whether he mean that fornication which is condemned in adultery; or whether that, of which it is said, thou hast destroyed every one that committeth fornication from thee, under which that of adultery is contained, for sure he doth fornicate from the Lord, that takes the members of Christ, and makes them members of an harlot. Here the question proposed by S. Augustine( for the resolving of which, he desires that his own judgement may not be taken alone, 
legate& alia sieve nostra quae postea scripta sunt, sieve aliorum melius considerata, atque tractata, &c.  but other mens thoughts compared with it) is onely this, not whether all other sins may come under the word {αβγδ}, used by Christ( for he presently adds a caution for that, non quia omne peccatum Fornicatio est, all sin is not meant by it) but whether it be not taken in that latitude, wherein the Psalmist useth it, Ps. 72.27. And it being by him expressly affirmed, that that notion contains adultery under it, it seems to me most reasonable to interpret S. Augustine to that sense, which from those other more ancient and later Writers, hath now been mentioned, so as fornication may contain all those sins of uncleanness, which the Nations, that departed from God, fell into, and for which they were destroyed expressly, Lev. 18. and 20. Of which as adultery is one, so it is but one. And so fornication, that comprehends all unlawful lusts, will still be that onely head of sins, for which divorces are imaginable to be allowed by Christ. And whether for all the sorts of that, is it, which by that Father is still called latebrosissima quaestio, a most obscure question, and such as he is not willing to define in it.  
As for the place 1 Cor. 5.1. It is most manifest, that fornication there signifies in the same extent, that it doth in the Precept to the sons of Adam and Noah, and denotes all kind of prohibited lust, and so comprehends incest under it, and cannot in any reason be farther extended to sins of any other classis, or be rendered, as Mr. Selden would have it, flagitium, crimen,& deviantis ainae turpitudo, as if any sort of great fault, or turpitude, murder or sacrilege, &c. could be so called. The word and notion of fornication may certainly be allowed to be retained there, and acknowledged to express fully, what the Apostle there meant by {αβγδ}.  
And for Christs joining {αβγδ} harlots with Publicans, as elsewhere sinners are joined, that will prove no more, but that either {αβγδ}, as whores, were sinners, and a gross kind of sinners, as they are acknowledged to be: or 2. that the word [ sinners] being set to denote Gentiles,( or, as 'tis elsewhere expressly, sinners of the Gentiles) fornication is noted, as a gentle sin, very ordinary, as was said, among the heathen: or else 3. that {αβγδ} sinners, may peculiarly denote that kind of sin, as the {αβγδ} the sinner woman, Luk. 7.37. is generally resolved to have been an harlot, and so in many languages 'tis ordinary. And so still this instance was fit to attend the former, having as little force or p●opriety as any, to conclude, That all other sins, of what sort soever, are called by, or comprehended under that title of fornication, or that all other sinners may be called harlots, because harlots are sometimes styled sinners.  
After the view of the Syriack word, which Christ is supposed to have used, Mr. Selden proceeds to the Hebrew, or Ralbinical, wherein it is also imagined Christ might speak( although that at the same time he spake both lang●ages it is impossible, and very possible that, speaking but one, neither of these should be the true word) And then the word that is pitched on, is {αβγδ}, the same that signifies turpitude, Deut. 24.1.  
Of this I shall premise three things: 1. That there being other words ordinarily rendered by the Septuagint to this sense, {αβγδ}, with its conjugates, forty times rendered {αβγδ}, it must follow, that the con●ecture that {αβγδ} was the very word, which Christ used, is very fallible, and unable to support what is built upon it: Or if it be said, that {αβγδ}, which is so often rendered {αβγδ} adultery, is yet never rendered {αβγδ} fornication, then as I aclowledge that, so I reply that {αβγδ}, is never rendered {αβγδ} neither, but {αβγδ}, {αβγδ}, &c. which signifies neither fornication nor adultery. 2. That although that word were imagined to be used in that place of Mat. 19. where in opposition to {αβγδ}, every cause, Christ might possibly be conceived to determine the cause of divorces to that to which in Moses it had been determined, yet it being also certain, that Christ had spoken formerly of this matter, Mat. 5. it is most certain, that the word used in Deuteronomy, could not in that sense, that there belonged to it, be there used by him, and consequently Mat. 19. where his speech is by Matthew set down in the same manner, as c. 5. it had been, can it not with any reason be imagined to have been used by him.  
In that place of Mat. 5. {αβγδ} in the notion of Deut. 24.1. cannot be supposed to have been the word. For there Christ beginning his speech with a reference to that which had been indulged by Moses in that place of Deuteronomy, It hath been said, that if a man put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce; he presently subjoins, But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, &c. The latter part of this speech of Christ is a direct opposition to that which he had cited in the former. The[ {αβγδ}, But I say unto you] is a demonstrative evidence of that: But this it could not be, if fornication were no more then the turpitude in Deuteronomy, for then, as there a man might for turpitude, put away, so here for turpitude a man still might, which is not an opposition, but identity.  
Thirdly, that whatsoever language Christ spake, or Matthew first wrote in, it is acknowledged, that this Gospel was rendered into Greek by some Apostle, either James, or John, or Matthew himself, who must be supposed to know what that Hebrew word was,( which we can but guess at very imperfectly) and have chosen thus to express it; and consequently, that no farther advantage can be made of this, then if it had been first written in Greek by him, but that the word {αβγδ} must in all reason be understood in the same sense, that either in all, or at least in some places of the New Testament, or in the dialect of the Hellenists, and Translators of the Old Testament, it had been taken, and by that measure {αβγδ}( in the notion of the word, Deut. 24.) cannot be deemed the word which Christ used, being, as I said, never rendered by {αβγδ}.  
For to this matter it must be observed, that the uncovering the nakedness, or {αβγδ} Lev. 18. is a very distant thing from the {αβγδ} finding any matter or accusation of nakedness in her, Deut. 24. The uncovering, or disclosing, in Leviticus, contains all the incestuous, prohibited marriages, and other breaches of the seventh Commandment; but the finding {αβγδ} in Deuteronomy, supposes not t●e committing of any turpitude, but the discerning that in the wife, which is made matter of some accusation or dislike.  
Of either of these affirmations, I suppose, there neither is, nor can be any doubt; and Mr. Selden hath acknowledged l. 3. c. 21. that the word {αβγδ}, as it is used in this matter of divorces, and diversly interpnted by the School of Hillel and Sammai, Multum discrepat ab câ turpitudinis notione, quâ incestus &c. in Levitico designatur, differs very much from that notion of turpitude, by which incest and adultery, and other unlawful copulations, are expressed in Leviticus.  
Which( although it be not exactly true, for Incest is not there called {αβγδ} or turpitude, but the disclos●ng of {αβγδ} the uncleanness, or nakedness, or shane of one that is near unto him, yet) being by Mr. Selden thus granted, and it being otherwise evident, that it is the notion in Leviticus, and not of the word nakedness, but the phrase, disclosing nakedness, which is expressed in Greek by {αβγδ}, 1 Cor. 5.1. and Act. 15. and elsewhere, There is little reason to doubt, but that, if {αβγδ} were here used, and in like manner rendered by {αβγδ} fornication, it were in the sense of Leviticus, and then t●is whole controversy is at an end. But yet to prevent all possible mistakes, I shall farther deduce this matter.  
The word {αβγδ} signifies unclean or uncomely, and is applied sometimes to vices, as Deut. 23.14. any {αβγδ} or unclean thing, i.e. any s●n, such as God dislikes to see, as any pure eyes must do, to behold anothers shane, but most frequently the uncomely parts of the body. See Habak. 2.15. where, looking on their nakedness,( the same that was Chams sin against his father) is evidently in this sense; and is answered, v. 16. with a like phrase, and let thy foreskin be uncovered. And thus 'tis generally used, when there is mention of disclosing or uncovering {αβγδ}, which we ordinarily render nakedness, meaning that part which ought to be covered. In this second, and most ordinary notion of the word, it is certain, that the phrase Lev. 18. is to be explained, so as to uncover nakedness, is to take to wife, or use as such, and agreeably, if the woman be such as it is not lawful for him to mary; then, and not else, the [ uncovering her nakedness] is {αβγδ}, to commit fornication with her.  
And so 'tis plain that {αβγδ} nakedness is very distant from the word {αβγδ}, fornication, and that the uncovering of nakedness is it, which is equivalent to fornication; and accordingly the title of the Precept to the sons of Adam, which is rendered by[ {αβγδ}, of fornication] is {αβγδ} of the revealing, or disclosing of nakedness, and not {αβγδ} of nakedness, onely. And it is not impossible, but this may be the notion of the word in this place of Deuteronomy also, and so {αβγδ} signifying {αβγδ} thing or matter; and again, {αβγδ}, quarrel, or accusation, {αβγδ} matter of nakednesses, will be a civil phrase to denote any thing between man and wife; of that sort, which is not plainly to be name, and the finding of that in the [ wife] shall be the discerning of somewhat of that kind, after his coming near unto her, for which she hath no favour in his eyes, and for which he dislikes and hates her.  
And accordingly the former part of the verse is rendered by the Greek, If any man shall take a wife, {αβγδ}, and cohabit with her, and the Targum to the same purpose, noting this dislike to be a consequent of that.  
Against this understanding of the words, no inconvenience or difficulty can lie, whether we suppose {αβγδ} to signify {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ} an accusation,( as it oft doth signify) or whether it be rendered matter onely. For then {αβγδ} will be negotium nuditatis, or, as Tertullian renders it, impudicum negotium, some conjugal secret, somewhat, I suppose, which appears odious to the husband, and may appear otherwise to another, to whom she may accordingly be married. And as this is on all hands resolved not to be fornication, so being not there rendered by {αβγδ}, or any word of that nature, but onely by {αβγδ}, some unclean matter, or matter of nakedness, there can be no reason to believe, that that should be the word used by Christ, which Matthew renders to {αβγδ}.  
This will farther appear, if it be again remembered, that our Saviours words are set opposite Mat. 5. to the {αβγδ}, that which was said under Moses, i.e. to the place of Deuteronomy, and all the interpretations of it, which is not possible, if {αβγδ} there, were all one with {αβγδ} here, for then the same indulgence should be allowed, and not any stricter restraint, in stead of it.  
But then the inconveniences which would be ready to attend this, if it were admitted, are of an high nature, and may yet farther deserve to be considered: For it is confessed by Mr. Selden, That among the Jews it was most generally received, that for light causes, dislike of beauty, age, and other such things, wives might be put away. And he adds, idque ex sacrae legis mente, and this according to the sense of the sacred law( l. 3. c. 18.) i. e. surely according to the sense of the words in Deuteronomy. And of the three opinions in this matter, set down fr●m the Misna, of Sammai, that restrained it to turpitude, of Hillel, that extended it to over-boiling his meat, or any such light cause, and of Aquiba, that if he found any handsomer, or more agreeable to him, be might put her away, It is apparent, and affirmed by the Misna, that all of them grounded their opinions on these words of that Text, {αβγδ}, diversely interpnted.  
By which it is evident, what absolute unlimited liberty is introduced, and consequently how little the bond and vow of marriage shall signify, if it be once resolved, that {αβγδ} in Christs speech, is the same with {αβγδ} in Moses.  
For then, as Josephus saith, about Christs time, that a 
Antiq. 4. c. 8.  man might separate from his wife for any causes whatsoever; adding, {αβγδ}, and many such causes there are which befall men; and confessing of 
in vitâ.  himself, that he put away his wife after he had three children by her, {αβγδ}, because he disliked her manners: so must it be expected again, there being nothing imaginable to restrain Christians from following the Jews, if Christs words were resolved to be the same with those, which the learned among them so generally interpnted to all this liberty.  
Having premised thus much, 'twill now be easy to discern the no force of all the proofs which Ms. Selden adds to make it probable, that the {αβγδ} in Deuteronomy should be the word here used by Christ. As first, because, saith he, this was the form used by the School of Sammai, that divorce was not to be admitted, but for the {αβγδ} causam aut rationem turpitudinis, cause or reason of turpitude. To this I answer, That Christ was no disciple of the School of Sammai, but came with Commission from God to reform both Hillel, and Sammai, and Sanhedrin, and Moses himself, and to give stricter precepts and interdicts in this matter, then had ever been given by any of these, and so is not to be imagined to have used Sammai's form of speech, any more then to have taken his doctrine from him, but appears clearly( in his Sermon on the Mount, Mat. 5.) to have opposed his new doctrine[ But I say to you] to the[ {αβγδ}, It hath been said] by Moses and others( none excepted of any later date) that were before him.  
His second proof, because the word signifies {αβγδ} and {αβγδ},( I shall suppose it a slip of the Printer, for {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, for, though there be {αβγδ} from another Original, sure there are no such words) shane, and shameful thing, concludes as little. For we know, that the former of those in Greek denotes the hidden parts, and the second any uncomely thing, and neither of those will be fitly rendered {αβγδ}, fornication. And though it be true, that Deut. 23.14. it signify an unclean thing, i.e. a sin, yet that concludes as little, there being many sins besides {αβγδ}, whatever notion be assigned it. And indeed every iniquity is unclean and filthy in the sight of Gods pure eyes, as nakedness is in the sight of men, and so may fitly be expressed by that phrase. The short is, that the word {αβγδ} is rendered {αβγδ}, all words to denote nakedness, or shane, and {αβγδ}, naughtiness, Ezek. 16.36. where we rightly render nakedness, but never {αβγδ} fornication, or adultery, or any word of that importance.  
And when he farther pretends that the word in Leviticus signifies another mans wife, and all that are forbidden to be taken in marriage, First, that is not true, as hath been largely shewed: and Secondly, if it were true, it were far from proving, that it signifies {αβγδ}, the person and the act being not the same. And so again, when by the Karaeans 'tis defined, Every thing that is uncovered, which ought to be kept close; that still infers, that it signifies the womans shane, but not {αβγδ}, whatsoever that signifies.  
As for his third proof out of the Prophets, it infers nothing less, then what he would prove from it. For, first, that of Ezek. 16.37. I will uncover {αβγδ} thy nakedness, and they shall see all thy nakedness, is directly in the notion of Leviticus for the secrets parts, the discovering of which is a figurative expression, for the bringing one to shane, {αβγδ}, punishing openly, and there is no pretence that it should signify there malitiam, flagitium, vitium, malice, sin, 'vice, or if it did, it must do it but by a metaphor, as a mans sin is called his shane.  
So secondly, that of Nahum 3.4. I will show the nations {αβγδ} verenda tua, thy shane, 'tis evidently in the former notion; and if it refer to latrocinia &c. thefts, lies, murders, with which Niniveh abounded, it is but by a figure again, as the [ showing their shane to the Gentiles] is the punishing their sins in their sight, as in the place even now cited out of Habakkuk did appear.  
As for Onkelos's rendering {αβγδ} in Deuteronomy, by transgressionem aliquam, some transgression, that still proves not that that transgression was fornication, for it might be somewhat else, and it is clear by Christ, who opposes his doctrine to that in Deuteronomy, that it was.  
As for the concurrence of the opinions of learned men, Arias Montanus, Scultetus, Grotius, that the passage in the Gospel referred or pertained to the controversy of the Schools of Hillel, and Sammai, First, it is evidently contrary to the Text,( and cannot receive aid from any opinion of three learned men) where the Pharisees question, Mat. 19.7.[ {αβγδ}, Why then did Moses?] is a proof, that they understood Christs answer to be contradictory to Moses, and Christs reply is a concession of it: and so evidently in the other places. Secondly, if it be granted, that Mat. 19. the Pharisees question was according to Hillels doctrine, whether divorces were lawful {αβγδ}, for every cause, or quarrel, or dislike, yet that is no proof, that Christ took part with Sammai against him, and commanded no more strictness, then Sammai maintained. And as that is the onely thing to be proved, so I believe there is none of those Authors have affirmed that; or if Scultetus have, his name will add little to Mr. Selden.  
This he again endeavours to prove from the words of Origen upon Matthew. It is a long passage, and I cannot think fit to set it down at length; when, by that which Mr. Selden hath cited, 'tis clear, 
p. 497.  that all that Origen doth, is to recite an ob ection of a Jew against Ch●ists words, viz. that the cause allowed for divorces in Deuteronomy, was onely that of fornication; and consequently that Christ, allowing that one cause, did the Jews wrong, in saying it was for the hardness of their hearts that that liberty was indulged them. To which I shall onely say, That if that Jew were not in the right, there is nothing to be gained from him; and if he were, then, first, was Christ in the wrong against whom he objects: and secondly, Mr. Seldens whole cause is fallen to the ground unexpectedly, for if the divorces in Deuteronomy were allowed in no cause, but that of {αβγδ} fornication, and if res turpis, uncleanness, there signified that, then questionless there is no pretence to be had from thence( or from any other topic of probation) that we Christians may divorce for any other causes but adultery. For that Origen there by[ {αβγδ}] understands adultery, is presently 
Nec {αβγδ} ibi significare vult a●iud Origenes atque adul●c●ium.  confessed by Mr. Selden: onely he adds, that Origen makes that but an example of other sins, for which divorces were admitted, which though it no way appear by the words cited by him, yet if it were true, it no way follows, that that example must infinitely be extended, or farther then to other sins of uncleanness, incest, unnatural villainy, &c. to which the word may, and by some others hath been extended.  
And as it will easily be granted, that those are all contained under the word {αβγδ} in the Gospel; so there is no temptation from thence to believe, that other distant sins, of what quality soever, should be contained under it, much less all the causes of divorce allowed either by Hillel or Sammai, which are not all affirmed to be sins.  
This is all that is in that Chapter proposed by Mr. Selden, in favour of this greater liberty, and it was but necessary to add, That what was here proposed, was but by way of disquisition, 
Disquisivimus heic tantum nos, p. 4●7.  for it is far from proving any thing. I wish this may be of force to satisfy the inquiry, that what hath so diligently been sought, is not to be found any where.  
But this is not all: For, c. 28. another attempt is made to obtain a greater indulgence and liberty in this matter, by surveying the practise and usage of men, first, from Christs time to Constantine, then from Constantine forward, by these two intervals to learn, how the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles was understood.  
But to this I answer, First, that the practices of men, even of Christians, are a very infirm proof of the doctrine of the Church in any point, because that which is most resolved to be unlawful, is yet many times practised: and secondly, that this method of inquiry, whether into doctrines or practices, by way of historical dissertation, if it be partially managed,( by setting down what is most favourable to the desired Conclusion, and omitting what is not so) is a ready art of infusing and imposing any thing on the incautious Reader, without rendering the Author liable to answer for the unconcludingness of the Mediums, when they come to be examined. And accordingly it is here made use of: For, in that whole first interval or period of 300. years; two Examples onely Mr. Selden brings of Christian women, who gave Bills of Divorce to their husbands,( one, of her in Justin, Apol. 1. who when her husband, being an unbeleiver, and a very wicked person, had departed from her, {αβγδ}, she gave him such a Bill of Divorce as the Romans use, and was separated: and this about the year of our Lord 150. The other, of Saint Thecla, the Sponsa, or espoused of Thamyris in Iconium, and S. Pauls disciple, who, saith he, would not mary him, but renounced her espousals.) And having name those two, he then concludes, First, That the customs and usage of this interval, are not so expressly to be found in this matter: and, Secondly, that the way of conjecturing what their practise was; is by the Laws and Sanctions of Princes and Emperors in the second interval, after that Christianity was received into the Roman Empire, there being but a small handful of writers that preceded, and few of them touching the matter of Divorces. By which means he presently takes liberty to spend the rest of the Chapter in setting down several imperial laws in that matter.  
To this part of his discourse I answer briefly by these degrees: First, That if two examples of divorces for other causes beside fornication, were to be met with among Christians in the space of 300. years after Christs interdict, this would be no very new or strange thing, nor argument that it was not deemed to have been prohibited by Christ, but on the contrary, it were much more difficult to pitch on any other interdict of Christs, which could not appear to be many times more eminently violated, in the hundredth part of that space.  
Secondly, That neither of these examples are at all to the present purpose, these being of women giving bills of divorce to their husbands, for which there is no pretence of liberty from Christ, no nor under Moses among the Jews, and not of husbands putting away their wives.  
And thirdly, that even of these two examples, the first being in case not onely of a most flagitious, as well as infidel husband, but also of one qui abscesserat, which had departed from her, her giving the bill of divorce, and being separated from him, is no argument or example of any great liberty, but agreeable to S. Pauls determination, If the unbeleiver will depart, let him depart; a believer {αβγδ} is not enslaved in such a case, 1 Cor. 7.15. And for the second, that of Thecla, besides that Mr. Selden gives 
Hujus historiolae fides penes autores sit. p. 558.  no great heed to the story, it was( saith Basil of Seleucia that relates it) before marriage, and so onely a renouncing the sponsalia, and refusing to mary a person, that most bitterly detested Christianity: and so Mr. Selden appeareth to aclowledge, when he first calls her sponsa, espoused onely, not married, and adds, nuptias noluit, she would not mary, and sponsalibus renuntiavit, she renounced the espousals, which supposeth it to have proceeded no farther.  
But then fourthly, that the practise of those times of the first interval should best be judged of by the Rescripts of the Emperors of the second interval, this is most unreasonable. 'tis evident, that those Rescripts are laws to bind for the future, and not Records to testify for the time past; and if, being delivered by Christian Emperors, they did( as Mr. Selden saith) restrain the liberty formerly used, yet sure that liberty was such as was used in time of Paganism by Infidels, or else by carnal Christians, not such as was owned and taught by the Governors of the Church of Christ, which are known to have used a greater strictness. And so there is little pretence or colour to be had from hence, that Christs words were in the Primitive times interpnted to a greater liberty. For if the small handful, as it is styled, of Christian writers of those first 300. years, be compared with the Rescripts of the Emperors, which are made use of after, First, the handful will not appear very small, or contemptible in that comparison: and Secondly, it might have been as reasonable to have enlarged it by taking in the volumes of the Christian Fathers afterward, as to insist on those Rescripts of the Emperors which were afterward. The onely difference is, that by observing this course, the result would certainly have been this, the thing pretended to, would not have been had: All these writers, that speak of it, asserting positively this one onely cause of divorce, that of fornication.  
Lastly, for the Constitution of Constantine, it is observable, First, that it doth not define what shall be deemed lawful in divorces, but onely in what case the woman should be allowed a dowry, in what not, and in what cases the man should be allowed to mary again; and such indeed useth to be the matter of Civil Sanctions, even of Christian Lawgivers, which extend only to the outer man, inflicting of punishments according as the temper of the people requires or permits, and not in defining what is before commanded or forbidden by Christ. Secondly, the cases wherein Divorces are by Constantine( I cannot say allowed, but) mentioned and foreseen, as possible, do not imply any very great liberty to have been used in those times( though also those liberties that are most used among wicked men, are sufficiently acknowledged to be unlawful:) For they are but three on the womans side, Si moecha, si medicamentaria, si conciliatrix, if she be a whore, or a witch, or a bawd, and the first and the last fall directly under the case reserved by Christ, the bawd being presumed a whore, and somewhat more. And for that of witchcraft, or practising on the life of the husband by poisons, &c.( for those may be comprehended under the {αβγδ} or medicamenta) although the case be somewhat changed, 'tis yet but little mollified by that. However, 'tis acknowledged in some of the Rescripts of Christian Emperors, the restraints are not made strictly according to Christs model, and therefore there is nothing strange in that of Constantines.  
And the reason is plain, because the Imperial Laws were to comprehend all sorts of men that were in the Empire; and though the Emperor were Christian, and many of his subjects also, yet 'tis sufficiently known that all were not, and accordingly to his mixed dominions, the strict Christian Law would not conveniently be adapted. The writings of the Fathers of the Church and Canons of their councils, which are supposed to be written peculiarly to Christians, are therefore the onely Records by which we may judge what was deemed the law of Christ, and those, I am sure, count many things unlawful in this kind, which they aclowledge {αβγδ} legal by the Imperial Constitutions.  
Of this we have had evidences enough already, and 
p. 555.  Mr. Selden confessing Tertullian, Chrysostome, aliosque non paucos, and not a few more, to be of the opinion, which the Church hath maintained, will save me that pains, especially when he is not able to name any one to the contrary, which I conclude, because he hath not done it. I shall but mention two Testimonies; one, which the Edict of Anastasius the Emperor, 
p. 570.  produced by Mr. Selden, in favour of divorces for some other causes, put me in mind of, out of the Epistles of Avitus Alcimus, 
Ep. 49.  which were written about that very time, Persuasum in Galliâ fuisse, solum adulterium legitimam causam esse divortii, That the French were persuaded that adultery was the onely lawful cause of divorce; and accordingly pronouncing of fornication, that it is the sin, 
p. 110.  propter quod solum Deus separari virum permittit à conjuge, for which onely God permits the husband to be separated from his wife. The other, is that of Gregory, l. 9. Ep. 39. Si dicunt religionis causa conjugia debere dissolvi, sciendum est, quia etsi hoc lex humana concessit▪ lex divina tamen prohibuit. Per se enim veritas dicit, Quos Deus conjunxit, homo non separet: Quae etiam ait, Non licet dimittere uxorem exceptâ causâ fornicationis. Quis ergo huic coelesti egislatori contradicat? If they say that for Religion marriages ought to be dissolved, they must know, that although the law of man hath granted this, yet t●e law of God hath prohibited it. For the truth saith, Whom God hath joined, let no man sever: and again, It is not lawful to put away a wife, except for fornication. Who then can contradict this heavenly Law-giver?    

The fourth Quaere. Of the Baptizing of Infants.  
IN the next place I shall proceed to the Baptizing of Infants( meaning thereby the obligation that lies on Christian parents, and Pastors, the one to bring their children to Baptism, the other not to reject them when they are duly brought) and show you the basis whereon I conceive it is founded, and standeth in the Church of Christ.  
Where first it being remembered( what hath in the first Discourse been, I conceive, sufficiently evidenced) that whatsoever Command or Institution hath come from God the Father( by his Angels, or by his Prophets) from Christ( either personally, or through his successors the Apostles) is of infallible obligation to all, to whom it was given,( and so every Institution of Christs to all Christians) and that the particular manner of conveying it to our knowledge, whether by the writings of the Old and New Testaments, or by any other means, is but extrinsical to any such Precept or Institution of Christs, or his Apostles. It will be abundantly sufficient to the satisfying of this Quaere, if we shall by competent arguments evince, that in the Institution of Baptism, 
Christs institution of Baptism.  as a Sacrament to be continued in the Christian Church, Christ and the Apostles did not reject Infants, but entertain and receive them to it.  
And the foundation of this eviction may very fitly be laid in the customs and Usages then among the Jews.  
For that the Institutions of Christ( who came first a messiah to the Jews, 
Founded in Jewish customs.  was born of that Nation, lived regularly under their law, observed their pious customs( some, as the Feast of Encaenia, or Dedication of the Altar, 1 Mac. 4.59. which had not been instituted by God, but by the Jews themselves in time of the Maccabees) and onely meant to reform what was amiss, and height●n that which was imperfect) were by him drawn from the former practices and usages of the Jews, some mentioned, others not mentioned, in the Old Testament, and so were lightly changed, and accommodated to his own purposes, might easily be shewed through many, I suppose, through all particulars.  
I shall not insist on any other, but this of Baptism, yet shall I mention a few of them. Thus, 1. 
Examples of Jewish customs accommodated by Christ.  the calling and receiving of disciples, or constant attendants, is answerable to the disciples of the Prophets among the Jews, who were to attend on, and minister unto them. So Joshua to Moses, Exod. 24.13. 
Disciples.  Elisha to Elias, 1 King. 19.2. and generally the sons of the Prophets, so called, not onely as those that were taught by them, but also as attendants on them, by that Hebraism whereby {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, sons and servants, are of the same signification. And of these it is known, that they were wont to be sent on their errands, that they went to take up room, and prepare for them: and accordingly when John Baptist, which was Christs forerunner, saith of himself, that he was unworthy to carry his shoes, Mat. 3.11. it is clear, that he refers to the custom of disciples, who were used to such personal attendances, and ministries, and went before the Prophets. And so Christ is said to sand the Seventy, {αβγδ}, before his face to every city whither he meant to come, Luk. 10.1. And so Peter and John go before him to prepare the Passover, Mat. 16.17. Thus, secondly, 
Power of the keys.  was the donation of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, lightly drawn from the constituting the Oeconomus over the Kings house, Isa. 22.21. and making him father of the house of Judah, by putting the Key of David on his shoulder. Thirdly, that of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 
The Lords Supper.  instituted in, and taken from their postcoenium and Cup of blessing, solemnly used by them at the close of a Festival. Fourthly, the Imposition of hands 
Imposition of hands.  in confirmation, and absolution, and ordination, from the manner both of paternal blessing by the use of that ceremony, as in Jacob to his children, and of assuming to the dignity of an Elder in the Sanhedrin, by the use of the same ceremony. Fifthly, the title of Apostles 
Apostles.  for deputies and proxies, sent with Commission or Letters of Credence, Mat. 10.40. to supply Christs place, and act here on earth in his stead. Sixthly, that of 
See Quaere fifth.  Bishops 
B●shops. ( answerable to the {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}▪ the Prince and Head of the Sanhedrin or Consistory, and called {αβγδ}, and the {αβγδ} among them, the Overseer of any public business) and the same again styled {αβγδ}, Elders, answerable to the {αβγδ} Elders among them, either as stewards in the house, as Eliezer, Gen. 24.2. is called {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, the elder of his house, and ruler of all that he had, {αβγδ} saith the Jerusalem Targum, ruler, or administrator, Gen. 15.2. or as the rulers of the Tribes, chief of the families, are called patriarches, and Elders of Israel, Exod. 3.16, 18. and Captains of thousands, i.e. rulers of cities. Seventhly, the Deacons 
Deacons.  instituted by the Apostles, parallel to the {αβγδ} under the Synagogue, those that provided for the Poor, {αβγδ}, ordained Curators, in Josephus Azanitae from the Hebrew name, and from their Office, {αβγδ}, treasurers, in Epiphanius, and {αβγδ}, they that performed the ministerial duties, in Philo, and withall waited, and attended on the Elders in the Sanhedrin, as {αβγδ} or ministers there. Lastly, the title of {αβγδ} the Church, 
{αβγδ}  in both notions of it, both for the People and Rulers of the Church, and those rulers either to officiate in the service of God, or to govern, from their assembling both in their Synagogues to hear and pray, and in their Town-halls to execute judgements. To pass by these, I say, 
Baptism among the Jews.  and many more, I shall onely insist on this one of Bap●ism, or Washing, a known Rite solemnly used among the Jews( as 'tis now among the Christians) for the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord, and so into the Congregation of the Jews, as among us it is into the new Covenant, and into the Church of Christ.  
Many branches of that custom there were, which have been 
Pract. Ca●. l 6. §. 4.  elsewhere mentioned. I shall here briefly gather them together, and farther testify the truth of those affirmations; which may any way seem questionable to any. First then, Baptism, 
Baptism of native Jews.  or washing of the whole body, was a Jewish solemnity, by which the native Jews were entred into the Covenant of God, made with them by Moses. So saith the Talmud, tr. Repud. Israel, or the Israelites, do not enter into Covenant but by these three things, {αβγδ} by Circumcision, and Baptism,& Peace-offering. So in Gemara ad Tit. Cherithoth, c. 2. {αβγδ} &c. Your fathers, i.e. the Jews of old time, did not enter into Covenant but by Circumcision and Baptism, &c. and Tit. Jabimoth, c. 4. Rabbi Joshua said, {αβγδ} We find of our mothers, that they were baptized and not circumcised. So Maimonides, Tit. Isuri bia, c. 13. {αβγδ} &c. By three things the Israelites entred into the Covenant, by Circumcision, Baptism, and Sacrifice. And soon after, What was done to you? i. e. the Jews in universum, {αβγδ}, Ye were initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision, Baptism and Sacrifice. Nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them.  
A●d that is the reason, I suppose, why the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.1. speaking of the fathers( the Israelites that came out of egypt) which by Gods mighty hand were redeemed to be a peculiar people to himself, and thereby entred into Covenant with him( God giving them an essay of his receiving them under his wings, by covering them with a cloud, and environing them with the Sea) saith, 
Baptiz●ng into Moses, 1 Cor. 10.1.  that they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, v. 2. i. e. were,( by those two great Solemnities, the cloud that gave them light by night, and a guard by day, and the sea that was a wall to defend them, and a devouring deep to their enemies) received and initiated into Gods Covenant under the conduct of Moses, as since they are wont to be initiated by Baptism.  
For the confirming of which interpretation, it may be remembered, First, that they that entred into Covenant with God( of which Baptism was the ceremony) are by the 
See Maimonides Tit. Isuri bia, ● c. 13.  Jews ordinarily said to be received {αβγδ} under the wings of the glory, or majestatick presence, i.e. in plain words, under the protection of God, which is metaphorically expressed by the shadow of his wings. Secondly, that the ground of this metaphor was, Gods exhibiting himself to his servants by the apparition of Angels, and those Angels both there and elsewhere coming in bright shining clouds( whence it is that Exod. 14. in this story are joined the removing of the cloud, and the removing of the Angel of God, v. 19.) and those clouds hovering over their heads, and {αβγδ}, overshadowing, Mat. 17.5. 
Mat. 17.5. ( for which S. Peter useth {αβγδ}, the excellent glory, 2 Pet. 1.17. 
2. Pet. 1.17.  or majestatick presence, as the Jews call it) and {αβγδ}, descending, or coming upon, or covering them, as an Eagle doth with her wings; or( {αβγδ}) as a dove, Mat. 3.16. And therefore, thirdly, that Baptism being among the Jews, the known Ceremony of such initiation into Gods Covenant, under the conduct of Moses, the overshadowing of the cloud, and the invironing of the Sea, which were really the receiving them into Gods protection, covenanted, and promised from him by Moses, Exod. 14.13, &c. are fitly said to be the baptizing them into Moses( {αβγδ}) in or by this cloud and sea. And so this is a clear interpretation of that obscure place concerning the Israelites in egypt, supposing onely this custom of entering the Jews into the Covenant by Baptism( which afterward came in, and was, I suppose, vulgarly known, when, and long before, the Apostle wrote) without which it will not be easy to give any probable account of it. For as on one side to apply it immediately to Christian Baptism, will be inconvenient, because it is said distinctly to be {αβγδ}, into Moses, so to interpret it, with others, of the fathers that were personally at Mount Sinai at the time of receiving of the law; and, to that end, to affirm that the sea is no more then any receptacle of waters, through which they that were to be baptized, were said to pass, and the cloud either nothing at all, or that wherein God spake to Moses, which is nothing to this purpose, will be liable to many more inconveniences, which I shall not here make stay to show, because it is but incidental to this business.  
Secondly, as the native Jews were thus entred into the Covenant by Baptism: 
Baptism of Proselytes.  so the Proselytes of the Jews, those that were taken in, as Proselytes of justice or righteousness, as professing or undertaking all their Law( and not onely as Proselytes of the Gates, to live among them) were received into their Church by Baptism also. So saith the Talmud tr. Repud. of Jethro, Moses's father in law, he was made a Proselyte by Circum●ision, {αβγδ}, and by immersion, or baptism in waters, and the manner of this immersion, is said to be, that they should sit up to the neck in water, and learn in the while some Precepts of the Law both hard and easy. So the Gemara ad Tit. Cherithoth, c. 2. The Proselytes entred not into Covenant {αβγδ} {αβγδ} but by Circumcision, Baptism, and sprinkling of blood, and Tit. Jabimoth, He is no Proselyte, unless he be circumcised and baptized, and unless he be {αβγδ} baptized, he is a gentle. So Maimonides, Tit. Isuri bia, c. 13. In all ages whensoever any gentle was willing to enter into the Covenant, and to be gathered under the wings of the Schechina, or divine majesty, and to undertake the yoke of the law, {αβγδ} he was bound to have Circumcis●on, and Baptism, and a Peace-offering, and if it were a woman, Baptism, and Sacrifice. And again, the stranger that is circumcised, and not baptized, or baptized, and not circumcised, is not truly a Proselyte, till he be both. And the Gemara almost in the same words, Tit. Jabimoth, c. 4.  
A clear testimony of this we have in Arrian the stoic Philosopher, in his Epictetus, l. 2. c. 9. where the Jewish Proselyte is by him called {αβγδ} dipped, and he that is so onely in show, not in dead, {αβγδ}, a counterfeit baptized person.  
The third thing observable in this baptism among the Jews, 
That of the Natives the pattern of the other.  is, that the baptism of the native Jews, was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated, and wherein it was founded. This appears by the arguing and determining of the question in the Gemara, Tit. Jabimoth, c. 4. after this manner, Of him that was circumcised and not baptized, Rabbi Eliezer said, that he was a Proselyte, because, said he, we find of our fathers( Abraham, Isaac, &c.) that they were circumcised, but not baptized. And of him that was baptized, and not circumcised, Rabbi Josua said, he was a Proselyte, because, said he, we find of our mothers, that they were baptized, and not circumcised. But the wise men pronounced, that till he were both baptized and circumcised, he was not a Proselyte: where the example of the Jews was the rule by which the obligation of the Proselytes is measured. And the same is evident by the reason rendered by the Jewish writers, of their baptizing the Proselytes, which is generally taken by them from that command, Num. 15.15. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger( i.e. {αβγδ} the Proselyte) that sojourneth with you, an ordinan●e for ever in your generations, as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord, one law, and one manner( i.e. one {αβγδ}, and one {αβγδ}, Luk. 1.6. one law for moral duties, and one law for rituals or ceremonies) shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. Thus the Gemara Tit. Cherithoth, c. 2. foundeth the circunctsing and baptizing of Proselytes upon those words, as to you, so shall it be to the Proselyte. So Maimonides, Tit. Isuri bia, c. 13. In like manner, through all ages, as oft as a gentle will enter into the Covenant, and receive the yoke of the law upon him, it was necessary that circumcision and baptism should be used on him, beside sprinkling of the Sacrifice, and if it were a woman, Baptism and Sacrifice; According as it is said( Num. 15.15.) As to you, so also to the Proselytes, &c.  
Here the original of that custom, as far as concerns the Proselytes, doth clearly appear, viz. that command of God, Num. 15.15. founded in a former custom of baptizing the native Jews: As for the original of it among the Jews 
The original of it among the Jews.  themselves, their writers deduce it as anciently, as from before the giving the law in Mount Sinai, Exod. 19.10. when God, to prepare them for the receiving of it, commands Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes. So saith Maimonides, Isuri bia, c. 13. But Baptism was in the desert, before the giving of the law, according as it is said, Thou shalt sanctify them, &c. And that agreeable to what we read of Jacob to his household, Exod. 35.2. Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments. So that as the Covenant made with Abraham, was sealed by Circumcision, so the giving of the law, which was the Covenant made by God, by the mediation of Moses, with all the people, was thought to be sealed by Baptism: And that, the washing, if not of the whole, yet of some parts of the body( ordinarily called {αβγδ} sanctifications) and the washing of their garments also. According to which we know it was anciently observed among Christians, that Baptism should be solemnized with the ceremony of clean and white garments: As the Dominica in Albis is a testimony.  
Beside this original of the jewish Baptism, referring to the time and occasion of it, Another may be observed of the significancy of this ceremony, viz. that it was taken from the custom of washing babes new born. 
The washing of new born babes.  Of that custom among other nations, we have many Records, That of Aelian of the {αβγδ} will serve for all, {αβγδ}( saith he, Var. Hist. l. 4. c. 1.) {αβγδ}, They are washed but thrice onely, from the pangs, when they mary, and when they are dead. The first of which, being precedent to marriage, as that is to death, is not to be conceived to belong to the woman, that is newly past her travail, but to the child that is newly born. And so of the custom among the jews, Ezekiel is express, c. 16.4. In the day wherein thou wast born, thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed with water. And that this custom of washing new born children, and not any other sort of purification, was it, that this Baptism of native jews and Proselytes referred to, may appear by that which in the Gemara is said of the baptized Proselyte, that he was made {αβγδ} as an infant new born.  
Having thus far insisted on this custom of Baptism among the jews, these things are farther observable of it.  
First, that of the Proselytes 'tis confessed, 
The infants of Proselytes were baptized.  that not onely they that were of age, but also their infant children were baptized. So the Gemara Babyl. Tit. Chet●b. c. 1. {αβγδ} they baptize the little or young stranger or proselyte. And the gloss adds, that the Rulers of the Consistory take care of it, and so are made to him a father. And Maimonides in the forecited place, Tit. Isuri bia, c. 13. They baptize the infant or little stranger upon the knowledge or understanding of the house of judgement, or the Congregation, i.e. on their desire in behalf of the children, and their promise to let them know what they have undertaken. Agreeably to that of S. Augustine, of the Church among us Christians, Accommodat illis matter Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur. Our mother the Church sends them other mens feet, heart, and tongue; that they may come, and believe, and confess, and so be capable of baptism.  
Secondly, that this ceremony of Baptism among the jews, 
Baptism among the Jews not iterated.  as that other of Circumcision, was never repealed, but received once for all the ensuing life. And this among them is acknowledged by all as unquestionable. To which our Saviour seems to refer, joh. 13.10. when he tells Peter, that {αβγδ} he that hath been washed, i.e. once washed all over, needs not, save to wash his feet; needs not to be washed all over any more, but is {αβγδ}, whole clean, the {αβγδ} will for the rest serve the turn, the daily washings of hands and feet, which they call {αβγδ} sanctifications, the purifying more and more daily the frailties and imperfections, and lapses of weak nature, those feet of the man( {αβγδ}, saith Eulogius) which are still behind after conversion.  
Thirdly, that they that were thus received as Proselytes by Baptism, 
The Proselytes regeneration by Baptism.  put off their former relations of kindred &c. To which surely our Saviour refers, when he talks of leaving father and mother, Mar. 10.29. And Tacitus the Historian, Nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quàm exuere patriam, parentes, liberos, fratres vilia habere, their proselytes are first taught, after renouncing the gods, to put off their country, parents, children, brethren, to despise them all. And the latter jews have a saying, that he that hath married his own Sister, or entred any the most incestuous bands, by becoming a proselyte ceaseth to have that near relation of blood to her, and may now live with her, as with a wife: which false superstructure in them, is yet a testimony of the truth, whereon it is falsely founded by them.  
Fourthly, that they that were thus baptized, were said to be born again; and that, as if born of a new mother, as it is oft said in the Talmud, to which our Saviour refers, when he talks of regeneration( of which, saith S. Paul, baptism is the laver) of being born again from above of water &c. joh. 3.35. And this was so vulgar a notion among the jews, that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus, that he understood it not: Art thou a ruler in Israel, and knowest not these things?  
That these so many things observed of the jewish baptism, were really accommodated by Christ to this rite of our initiation to Christian Religion, there is as little reason for us( that see the foot-steps of them in the New Testament, and the continual practise of the Church) to doubt, as, that a picture was taken from that face, which it resembleth to the life. And then by this one means we shall have a clear foundation of all that is at this day practised in the Church of God in this matter of Baptism: First, 
The application of all this to the Christian Baptism.  for the receiving all that come into that profession from heathenism, by this rite or ceremony. Secondly, all those that are born within the pale of the Church. Thirdly, their infant children, being undertaken for by Godfathers, who represent the Congregation. Fourthly, the never-iterating this ceremony, but( in case of falling into sin after Baptism) substituting Repentance and Absolution for it. Fifthly, the propriety of that phrase so solemnly received into the Church, of baptismal regeneration, new birth, &c. noting thereby the goodness of God, to make this new covenant of Mercy with us, and the strict obligation that lies on all that are baptized, by that grace of God there made over to them, to walk in newness of life.  
By all this appears, First, 
The example o● Circ●mcision.  how little needful it will be to defend the baptism of Christian Infants▪ from the law of circumci●●ng the Infants among the jews the foundation being far more fitly laid in that other of jewish baptism, a ceremony of initiation for all( especially for proselytes) as well as that, and whereas that of circumcision belonged onely to one, this other being common to both sexes. And yet from that example of circumcision among them, thus much must needs be gained to our present design, that the childes not being able to understand the vow of baptism, doth no way prejudice the baptizing of such, for if it did, it must necessary be an objection against the circunctsing the Jewish child at eight dayes old, who could then no more understand the Covenant, of which that was made the Sign, nor the wickedness that the entering into the Covenant obliged to abstain from, then the Christian Infant now can, and yet( under pain of excision) was commanded to be c●rcumcised. which being so far vindicated from being unreasonable and incongruous, by that example of circumcision, which is allowed of by all dissenters, there will be little reason to fear the objections from Reason, or, upon that score, to doubt of the practise of that, which is so reasonable, when it hath, beside this, the example of baptism among the Jews( from which it is immediately deduced) so adaequately proportionable, and directly parallel to it.  
So again, secondly, the mention in Scripture of the Apostles baptizing a whole household at once, 
Of baptizing a whole household. Acts 16.13.  Act. 16.33. is not of itself demonstrative, or convincing: because, that wider phrase may possibly be restrained to those that heard and believed in that family,. And although, when the custom of the Jews( whence this Christian rite so lately came) is remembered, that the Proselytes children, as well as those of age, were baptized, and that that was so ordinarily known, that it needed not be more distinctly and particularly affirmed, there will be little temptation to doubt, but that the Gaolers infants, if he had any, were comprised under the {αβγδ}, all his, and were baptized also;( and so Stephanas's infants under the {αβγδ}, household of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.16. 
1 Cor. 1, 16. ) yet because it is not certain of either of these, that they had any so young in their family, therefore 'tis confessed, that no concluding argument can be deduced from thence, and unconcludent arguments were in many respects much better waved, then made use of against gainsayers.  
But then thirdly, that speech of our Saviour, 
Christs reception of little children.  Mat. 19.14. 
Mat. 19.14.  and Mar. 10.6. 
Mar. 10.6.  which concludes that the {αβγδ} or little children may, and must be permitted to be brought by others to Christ, and being so brought, yet are said to come to him( {αβγδ}, the very words of which proselyte is made) and 2. his blessing them by imposition of hands; and 3. his affirming that the kingdom of God, the Church here, and Heaven hereafter, consists of such as they, are a conjunction of particulars, which although they come not home distinctly to baptizing of Infants( because it is not affirmed he did baptize them) are yet a farther proof of the uncharitableness and unreasonableness of the main objections( taken from the Infants not hearing, not believing, &c.) which are pretended to have force against this practise. For if those that cannot come, may, and must be permitted to be brought by others to Christ; if, at the youngest, they are capable of receiving blessing from him; if they are such, as of whom peculiarly the kingdom of God consists, then what hinders, but they may be capable of the early charity of the Church, in bringing and admitting them to baptism( though they do not understand the vow) and receive benefit and advantage by partaking of it? And the rather, when it is remembered, that Christ, that baptized not at all, Joh. 4.2. 
Joh 4.2.  and so thought not fit to baptize these, did yet afford that ceremony to them, which in the ancient Church was preparatory and antecedent to Baptism; viz. imposition of hands and blessing them. 
Imposition of hands preparatory to Baptism.  This, Clemens, or the Author of the Constitutions, mentions, l. 7. c. 39. where having set down the severals wherein the Catechumenus was to be instructed, he adds, but let him that lays on hands adore God, &c. And this, I suppose, it is that Clemens Alex: refers to, Paedag. l. 3. c. 11. in these words, {αβγδ}; On whom doth the Presbyter lay hands? whom shall he bless? meaning, most probably, in that place, not the nuptial benediction, but the solemnity with which the Catechist blessed those, that were catechised, preparatory to their Baptism. And so saith Eusebius of Constantine, l. 4. that to prepare for his Baptism, {αβγδ}, He made profession, and then was vouchsafed those prayers, which were given by imposition of hands. And thus the Holy Ghosts fa●ling upon Cornelius's family, Act. 10.44.( which was wont to be an effect of the Apostles imposition of hands, but of which we have no mention there) is by S. Peter looked on as an evidence, that God had accepted these Gentiles, and so that they were fit to be baptized, v. 47. can any forbid water? &c.  
But there is no need of laying much weight on this, or any the like more imperfect ways of probation. The whole fabric being sufficiently supported, 
The true Basis of Infant-Baptism: 1. Negatively, that  and built on this Basis( the customary Baptism among the Jews) and that discernible to be so, if we consider it first negatively, then positively.  
First, negatively, that Christian baptism, which is an institution of Christs, 
Christs institution of Baptism excludes not Infants.  lightly changed from the Jewish custom of receiving of Proselytes, by him appointed in his life time, and settled a little before his Ascension, hath nothing in the pattern, whence it is copied out, nothing in the copy itself, as it is set down in the New Testament, i.e. in the words of the Institution, or in his or the Apostles practise, which doth any way exclude the Christians children from being part of that indefinite number, that ought to be baptized, or for whom baptism was instituted by Christ.  
That there is nothing exclusive of them in the pattern( the Jewish custom of baptism) hath been sufficiently evidenced by the several branches of that, already insisted on. And in the New Testament, I cannot foresee any words that may come under suspicion of doing so, but those of Mat. 28.19. 
Objection from Mat. 28.19.  Go teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. And those words being duly weighed, are far from doing so. For the phrase which is there used in the Original, is a singular one, not duly expressed by our English[ Teach.] It is {αβγδ}, make disciples, or receive into discipleship all nations, baptizing them in the name &c. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them. You may see the word expl●ined in a parallel phrase, 
{αβγδ}.  joh. 4.1. The Pharisees heard that Iesus makes more disciples, and baptizeth, then John, {αβγδ}, where to make disciples, and baptize, is all one with {αβγδ}, where the baptizing being immediately annexed to the making or receiving disciples, and the receiving disciples not supposing any precedent instruction, but looking wholly on it as subsequent( in like manner, as in this place v. 20. {αβγδ} [ teaching] follows after {αβγδ} baptizing) all that are thus brought and received ad discipulatum, to be for the future instructed, and instituted in the Christian faith, may surely be received in baptism, the ceremony which is there prescribed by Christ, with which to receive disciples.  
To which purpose I shall( in passing) add this one observation, 1 Pet. 3.21. 
{αβγδ}, 1 Pet. 3.21.  Baptism is defined to be {αβγδ}, we render it, the answer, but it is rather, the question of a good conscience to, or toward God. That {αβγδ} signifies to ask, or demand, and not to answer, is as certainly known, as that quaerere and inquirere, to inquire, doth so signify, and so it is used, Mat. 12.10. and 16.1. Mar. 11.29. Luk. 17.20. joh. 18.20. Rom. 10.20. And there is no one place where it can possibly be otherwise taken. One thing onely there is peculiar sometimes in the use of the word, which differenceth it from ordinary questions, that it is oft used for such a questioning, as we mean by consulting, as consulting God, consulting the Oracle, i.e. making address, asking counsel of him. So Hos. 4.12. where we read, My people ask counsel of their stocks; the Greek hath, {αβγδ}. So Hesychius, {αβγδ}, rendering it by that word which is ordinarily used for consulting the Oracle, and from whence Apollo had his title of Pytho, and the Divines of Pythonesses. So Isa. 65.1.( and out of it Rom. 10.20. 
Rom. 10.20. ) their not hoping for deliverance out of Antiochus's hand, and consequently not seeking to, consulting, applying, add●essing themselves to God about it, is meant by their not asking, or inquiring of God. And accordingly in that place of S. Peter, the meaning of this definition or description of baptism will be, that baptism is the coming and seeking to God as to the Oracle, to inquire for the whole future life, applying ones self to God for his directions for all the future actions, with a, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? or, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? This is {αβγδ}( but that including a good, and an upright conscience, or 
cyril. Hie●esol●. {αβγδ}.  {αβγδ} a genuine sincere purpose to do what is there required of him.) And accordingly S. Cyprian hath interrogatio baptismi, Ep. 76. and 80. the asking or enquiring of baptism. From whence all that I have to conclude to the present purpose, is onely this( not that baptizing of Infants is there spoken of, or so much as intimated by S. Peter, but) that the proper signification of baptism, is the entering a disciple, initiating a proselyte, and doth no way praerequire actual instruction, but consists in coming to Christ, and his Church, to receive it, and obey it for the future: which though no grown man can be said to do with a good resolution, or good conscience, unless he have an explicit or implicit faith of some part of the Gospel, or at least some grounds of piety toward God, which must make him content to be a disciple of Christ, yet of children it is certain, 
Learning is not praerequired to discipleship.  that they may be thus brought by the care of their parents to this, as to other schools or discipleships, and delivered up to be scholars, before they know one letter, or have any actual willingness to acquire any knowledge. And thus we know Christs calling and receiving Philip to discipleship, joh. 1.44. 
joh 1.44.  did not suppose him to be praeinstructed by Christ; for there, after Christs finding him, the next thing is his saying to him, Follow me. And when the jews, Exod. 19.8. assumed to obey all the commandments of God, which he should give them, we do not suppose that the commandments had been formerly given them, but were to follow, c. 20. In brief, the one thing praerequired to a disciple( as to being 
Jo●ius in Ph●t. {αβγδ}:  capable of Christs miracles) is {αβγδ}, the readiness to obey, and receive what is delivered, and a non-resistance is some degree of that: and though the child which cannot obey, cannot be said to have at present any of this, yet the earlier he is received into Christs school, the Church( and we know from that place of Mat. 28. that baptism is the solemn ceremony of that) the surer he is to be praepossest with Christian knowledge, and to receive those infusions, while he hath the least prejudices and obstructions against them. And that is the ground of hastening infants to discipleship.  
To this may be added in the second place, that his receiving of disciples was the receiving of proselytes to the Covenant, and Faith of Christ, a disciple and a proselyte being perfectly all one, save onely that the latter denotes a coming from some other nation or country, which difference hath no place in this matter, where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations.  

Infants capable of Proselytism or reception into Covenant.  Thirdly, that Infant children are not by their years rendered uncapable of reception to Proselytism, i.e. of entering ininto this or any other Covenant, when by their parents, or the congregation, they are brought to it. That they are not uncapable, may appear by that example forementioned of the jews, who received the infant children of the Proselytes, upon the desire of the Parents, and the profession of the congregation, and accordly baptized them also. Secondly, by parity of reason taken from the jewish Natives, who enured and were admitted into Covenant with God, the Infants as well as men. So Deuteron. 29.10. Ye stand this day before the Lord your God, your captains of Tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger— That thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God. Where the little ones are part of the number of those that enter into covenant with God, and so may enter into this covenant made in Christ, by the parity of Reason. And, thirdly, by the origination of the word Proselytes( from {αβγδ}) they than come unto Christ, which is the onely thing which Christ mentions concerning little children, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: which infers their capacity of Proselytism, and the next words suppose them particularly qualified for it: for of such is the kingdom of God. They, and such whose humility and other qualifications resemble them most perfectly to children, are the persons of whom the Christian Church is to be constituted.  
All which being supposed, viz. that there is nothing discernible from the nature of Jewish baptism( wherein the Christian is founded) nothing in Christs institution of it, which can exclude the Christians infant children from baptism, but all the circumstances concurring most favourably to the reception of them, there is now but one thing wanting to remove all doubt in this matter, viz. Christs intention in this. And the way to evidence that, will be the opinion and sense that the Apostles( who were acquainted with Christs purpose, and cannot be imagined to have misunderstood his words) had of the intention of Christ to include Infants in that institution of baptism for all nations, and not to exclude them from it.  
And this is the second and positive part of the Basis, 
The positive part of the Basis of Infant Baptism.  whereon, I conceive, the Baptism of Infants to be founded in the Church. And that this was the Apostles sense of Christs words, and opinion of his Ins●itution, will appear by their own usage and practise, 
The Apostles practise evidenced two ways.  two ways testified unto us, First, by one considerable remain or footstep of it, in S. Pauls. Epistle to the Corinthians. Secondly, by the practise of the first and purest ages of the Church, which received Infants to baptism, and either, by so doing, testify the Apostolical usage, transcribed by them, or else farther affirm, that they received it by tradition from the Apostles. And the brief clearing of these two evidences, is all that I shall think necessary to add for the asserting the positive part of this doctrine. What else may be fit to be taken in, will be added more properly by way of answer to the Ob●ections which are producible against it.  
And first, the remain or footstep of the Apostolical practise, is, A reasoning of S. Pauls, 1 Cor. 7. which supposeth it then received, and known in the Church( at the writing of that Epistle) that Christians children were received to Baptism. The sum of which will be best discerned by the setting down a few verses, 
1 Cor 7.12. explained.  and a brief Paraphrase on them.  

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

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

14. For the unbeleiving husband 
{αβγδ}.  hath been sanctified by the wife, and the unbeleiving wife hath been sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.  For( beside the command of Christ, Mat. 5.32. which obligeth to this) other advantages there are of the believers living with the unbeleiver, worth considering. For by this means it hath oft come to pass, that the unbeleiving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer; and, considering the efficacy of good example, 1 Pet. 3.1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction, on presumption of the great zeal( and consequent endeavours and diligence) that by the Laws of Christianity the husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him, as a wife is, there is great reason of hope, that still it may be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeleiver, and the intuition of that( more then possible) effect, may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily. And this one consideration, viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer, 1 Pet. 3.1. should gain, i.e. bring the unbeleiver to the faith, and the reasonable presumption that it will be so, is the reason why the young children of Christians, which cannot as yet be deemed believers, are yet admitted to Baptism, because by their living in the family with Christian parents, they probably, and by the obligation lying on the parents, ought to be brought up in the faith, and kept from heathen pollutions( and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the Parents) doth reasonably presume they will. And upon this ground it is, that, though the children of Christians are, yet the children of heathens are not admitted to Baptism.  
That this is the true importance of the Apostles words, and force of his arguing, 
The confirmation of this interpretation, In the former,  doth for the former part of it appear evident; First, by the word {αβγδ} hath been sanctified, which must needs refer to some past, known examples, and experiences of this kind, or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the praeter tense. Secondly, by the phrase {αβγδ}, by, or through the wife. This the preposition[ {αβγδ}] so ordinarily signifies, that it cannot need to be farther testified,( and in this notion it is, that we here take it) whereas the notion, which by opposers is here affixed to it, that it should signify to( that to, which is a sign of the dative case)[ sanctified to the wife,( as meat to the believer) made lawful to her to live with,] is never once found to belong to it, in the New Testament, nor can with any tolerable congruity, or Grammatical analogy be affixed to it. All the places that are produced for this sense, are commonly mistaken. So Mat. 17.12.[ {αβγδ}] is not fecerunt ei, they have done to him, but on him, or against him: so as {αβγδ} is used for {αβγδ}, which is an ordinary acception of it. So Act. 4.12. There is no name {αβγδ}, it is not [ given to men] but among men. And that is an ordinary notion of {αβγδ}, for among, {αβγδ}, is God among us? and {αβγδ}, Christ among us; and many the like. So 1 Cor. 7.15. God hath called us, {αβγδ}: It is not to, as the note of a dative case, but unto peace, as {αβγδ} is again taken for {αβγδ}. So Gal. 1.16. to reveal his own Son {αβγδ}: It is not [ to me] but[ by, or through me to others,] as it follows, that I might preach him and when it there follows {αβγδ}, it is not[ to, but again, among the Gentiles.] And 2 Pet. 1.5. {αβγδ}, is, add unto your faith virtue, &c. in the notion of {αβγδ} for {αβγδ}, Unto your faith, or over and above that, {αβγδ} mustard-seed virtue, or fortitude, or constancy, that which in this time of persecution and scandal of the across, they stood so much in need of. And so still the rendering it [ to the wife] will be without any one example, and the turning it into quiter another phrase, as if it were {αβγδ} without {αβγδ}; which to do without any necessity or reason,( save onely {αβγδ}, to serve the opposers turn upon the place, and support his false opinion) must needs be very unreasonable. Thirdly, this appears most irrefragably, by the express words added on this argument, v. 16. where[ the unbeleiver's having been sanctified by the believer]( used as an argument why they should live together) is farther explained by these words of an undoubted perspicuous sense, For what knowest thou, o wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, o husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife? where the word {αβγδ} [ save] which ordinarily signifies to reduce( or as it is 1 Pet. 3.1. {αβγδ} to gain) to repentance from heathenism, or wicked life, is set parallel to {αβγδ} sanctifying, and makes it clear, what was meant by it.  
Which being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part, there will then be little reason to doubt, but that this, of the admission of the Christian children to baptism on this score, is the importance of the latter part: That, and no other, being it, which exactly accords with the former reasoning, and it being not imaginable, that this should be here added in that argumentative style[ {αβγδ}, whereas,( or, for) else were &c.] if it were not an enforcing of the foregoing position thus proved by him.  
What is thought fit to be brought for the eluding, 
And in the latter part of it.  and avoiding this interpretation, will be most fitly considered anon in answer to the Anabaptists Plea. Meanwhile, for the confirming of it, it may be remembered, what {αβγδ} holy, is known to signify in the sacred dialect, not onely an inhaerent, but a relative holiness, being separate, or set apart to God, discriminated from common, ordinary things, or persons, and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation, the office of a Prophet, or the like, so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be members of the Church, into which all are initiated by baptism. And accordingly, all visible professors, and not onely those that are sincerely such, are in Ezek. 9.2. the holy seed, and in the Epistles of the Apostles called {αβγδ}, holy.  
And secondly, how the word {αβγδ} unclean, is used by S. Peter, Act. 10.14. for those that must not( as he conceived) be received into the Church, as[ God's having cleansed] is God's reputing them fit to be partakers of that privilege. Whereby it appears, how fitly, receiving, and not-receiving to baptism, may be expressed by those phrases. Thirdly, how the word {αβγδ}, which is ordinarily to sanctify, doth among the Jews( whence this word {αβγδ} is taken) signify to wash( as when the High-Priests washing his hands and his feet ten times on the day of Expiation, is called {αβγδ} ten sanctifications, Joma, c. 3.§. 3. which being the word which denotes the washing some part of the body, and distinguished in use from the {αβγδ}, which is immersion of the whole body, may perhaps be an intimation, that the Primitive Baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body, but that sprinkling of some part, the literal importance of the {αβγδ} sanctifications, might be sufficient.  
Fourthly, it is known of the legal uncleannesses, contrary to those their sanctifications, that they were the cause of removing men from the Congregation, they that were so, {αβγδ}, unclean, might not partake of the privileges of the Temple, till they were washed and sanctified, and that is proportionable also to the notion here given of it, that the Christians children are holy, i.e. not inherently( they are not capable of that) but, in the account of God and men, capable of separation for the service of God, of being entred into the Church, into Covenant, which denominates men holy,( as the Gentiles, as long as they were out of it, were unclean and unholy, Act. 10.) Now are they holy, i.e. it is the present practise of the Church, that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time, to admit to Baptism such Infant children of parents, of whom one is Christian, though not of others. And to put all out of question, the Ancient Fathers, which certainly knew the sacred dialect, call Baptism, Sanctification. So Cyprian, Ep. 59. Eum qui natus est, baptizandum,& sanctificandum, He that is born, must be baptized and sanctified; where baptizing, is sanctifying of Infants. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. Edit. Bill. p. 658. {αβγδ}, 'tis better to be sanctified without sense of it, i.e. baptized in infancy, when they are not sensible of it, then to depart, or die without the seal of baptism. And again p. 648. {αβγδ}, let him be sanctified from the Infancy, i.e. baptized then. And many the like.  
This passage then being thus interpnted, is a clear proof or the point in hand. And, were not this the importance of it, there were no privilege imaginable, no sanctity which could be attributed to the Infants of Christians, which could not belong to the Infants of heathens also, which yet is here directly affirmed of the one, and denied of the other by the Apostle. And as this evidently concludes such a custom, known and acknowledged among Christians at that time: so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise, in which Christ founded his institution, hath laid the foundation of, in baptizing Proselytes and their children, and to which the Primitive Church conformed. And so though that judaical practise, taken alone, were not deemed any demonstrative evidence, that Christ thus instituted his baptism for the Gentiles, yet being taken in conjunction with this testimony of the Apostolical practise, and the Primitive usage, it brings all the weight with it, that a divine testimony interpnted by practise can afford: which is as great as any such matter can be capable of.  
It remains then that I proceed to the Testimonies of the Ancient Christian writers, who have mentioned this, 
Testimonies of apostolic practise.  either as a practise of the Church, known in the first times, or moreover as delivered them from the Apostles.  
And first we have the words of justin Martyr, 
Justin Martyr.  Resp. ad Orthod. or whoever wrote that ancient piece, {αβγδ}, Children are allowed to enjoy the good things that come by baptism, by the faith of them that bring them to baptism: directly agreeable to the force( and so very proper farther to confirm our notion and interpretation) of that place to the Corinthians, where, by reason of the believing husband, living with the unbeleiving wife, and the presumption that one may do good on the other, and bring her to the faith( and however bring up the children so;) the children are holy, i.e. vouchsafed the privilege of baptism, and the advantages consequent to it.  
Secondly, we have that of Irenaeus, 
Irenaeus.  that lived in the age of those that saw the Apostles, within the first Century after them, l. 2, adv. haeres. c. 39. who speaking of Christ that came, saith he, to save men of all ages, and specifying Infantes& parvulos, Infants and little ones, as well as pueros, juvenes,& seniores, boyes, young men, and old men, adds, omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, all, I say, who by him are born again to God, where the Infants being regenerate, and born again into God, must needs be interpnted after the Scripture notion of {αβγδ}, being born again, or regenerate by that laver of regeneration. And so 'tis known, that all the ancient Church writers understand Baptism by it, ( Dominica& Apostolicâ phra●●, saith Fevardentius there, after the style of Christ and his Apostles) and accordingly he adds, sanc●ificat infantes, he makes Infants holy, again in that sense that we had it to the Corinthians.  
Thirdly, for Tertullian, 
Tertullian.  who lived also within that first Century after the decease of the Apostles, we have these words, l. de Animâ, where, of the fidelium filii, children of the faithful, he affirms, that they are sanctitatis candidati,& sancti ex seminis praerogativâ, candidates of sanctity, and holy as in other respects, so from the prerogative of their birth, which as it is again an exact parallel to that place of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.13. in our rendering and interpreting of it, and an evidence, that it was then understood thus in the Church of God, so is it a proof of the practise of the Church in his time, in receiving the Christian children to baptism. And although l. de Bapt. c. 8. he argue for the delay of baptism in some cases, when it is not necessary( praecipuè circa parvulos, especially toward children) meaning, most probably, the children of believers, by others( as sponsores to promise for them) brought to baptism, as considering that those Sponsors might die, or not be able to perform their promise, yet by that very passage produced out of him against Paedobaptism, it is most evident that it was then practised in the Church on the children of Christians; 
The antiquity of Sponsores or Godfathers.  and as evident, that the Sponsores, Undertakers, or Sureties, which have place onely in baptizing of children, were in his time known and customary in the Church. And of them it is accordingly affirmed by 
In vitâ Hygini.  Platina, out of the ancient Records, that Hyginus the Bishop of Rome, and Martyr, An. Dom. 144. volvit unum saltem Patrimum, unamque Matrimam baptismo interest, appointed that there should be at least one Godfather and one Godmother present at baptism: Sic enim, saith he, eos appellant, qui infantes tenant dum baptizantur, for so they call those that bold Infants when they are baptized.  
Fourthly, Origen, 
Origen.  immediately after Irenaeus and Tertullian, is express not onely for the practise( secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari, according to the custom of the Church, baptism is given to Infants, on Lev. c. 12.13. Hom. 8. and again, Quia per baptismum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur& parvuli, because by baptism the filth of our birth is taken away, therefore are children baptized, Hom. 14. in loc.) but also for the Tradition from the Apostles, in Rom. 16. Ecclesia ab apostles traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare, The Church received tradition from the Apostles, to give baptism also to little ones. Nothing can be more express to the whole matter. And though we have not that piece of Origen in Greek, yet being translated by S. Jerome, and so owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius, prefixed before the Commentary, we have his authority to secure us, that these are Origens words.  
In this place I shall add a testimony out of that Author of the ecclesiastic Hierarchy, arguing for Paedobaptism, c. 7. {αβγδ}. Of this we say the same things which our divine Ministers of holy things, instructed by divine Tradition, brought down to us. 
The Author of the ecclesiastic Hierarchy.  That this wri●er was Dionysius the Areopagite, mentioned in the Acts, I do not pretend to believe; yet as Mr. Casaubon saith of him, that he was scriptor antiquissimus,& elegantissimus, a most ancient and most elegant writer: so it appears out of Pho●ii bibliotheca, that the question whether these were the genuine works of that Dionysius, lay under debate, about the year 420. For at that time Theodorus Presbyter alleged the arguments on both sides, for and against that assertion: By which it appears sufficiently, that the Author was very ancient, when so long since, his was matter of question concerning him. And after the same proportion, I might here reasonably add the words of the Author of the Constitutions, 
Of the Constitutions.  l. 6. c. 15. Baptize your little ones, and educate them in the discipline and precepts of the Lord: For though I am not persuaded that they were written in the Apostles time by Clemens Romanus, yet there is sufficient reason to assure us, that they were very ancient.  
In the next place S. Cyprians 
S. Cyprian.  authority comes, backed with the force of an African council, which, saith he, determined what is affirmed by him, Ep. 59. Quantum ad causam infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum& tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos baptizari non oportere— longè aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est; universi judicavimus nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei,& gratiam denegandam, &c. As to the case of Infants, which thou saidst were not to be baptized within two or three dayes after birth— It was far otherwise determined by all in our council, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God was to be denied to none that was born of men. And again, A baptisms atque à gratiâ Dei neminem per nos debere prohiberi. Quod cum circa universos observandum sit, atque retinendum, tum magis circa infantes ipsos& recens natos observandum putamus, &c. None ought to be hindered by us from baptism, and the grace of God, which as it is among all to be observed and maintained, so it ought the rather to be observed among Infants, and those that are newly born, who by their tears, with which they begin the world, might in reason obtain more from our help, and the Divine Mercy.  
So after him S. Augustine 
S. Augustine  of the Tradition from the Apostles, Ser. 10. de verb. Apost. and more expressly de Bapt. cont. Donatist. l. 4. c. 24. Nemo nobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper retinuit, hoc à Ma●orum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit. Let no man whisper to us other doctrines. This the Church hath always had, always retained, this it hath received from the faith of the predecessors, this it keeps perseveringly to the end. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, said semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. That which the universal Church maintains, and was not instituted by councils, but always continued, is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority. And lib. 10. de Gen. ad literam, c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, nec ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset t●aditio. The custom of our Mother the Church is by no means to be scorned, in baptizing of children, nor yet to be accounted superfluous, nor at all to be believed, if there were not apostolic Tradition for it. So l. 1. de pecc. mer.& remiss. speaking of the Pelagians, Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt; qui contra authoritatem Universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum& Apostolos traditam venire non possunt. They grant that children are to be baptized, because they cannot contradict the a●thority of the Universal Church delivered by the Lord and by the Apostles. These two last authorities receive some farther weight, by considering that they are by him urged to his adversaries, on whom he would not have pressed this Tradition as Apostolical, if in that age there had been ony suspicion to the contrary.  
From him, and all the ecclesiastic Writers and councils after him, I need not heap testimonies in this matter; it being known and acknowledged by all, how frequently they are to be met with; and that this was one great aggravation charged on Pelagius's heresy, that by consequence from his doctrine, he denied the baptism of Infants for the remission of s ns( which they that did, have been censured by the Church for heretics in all ages) as may appear both by S. Ambrose Epist. l. 4. Demetriadi virg. Hinc evacuatío baptismatis parvulorum, qui solâ adoptione donari, nullo autem reatu dicerentur absolvi. From Pelagius's doctrine follows the evacuating of the baptism of Infants, who should, by his opinion, be said to be adopted, but not absolved from any guilt. And in like manner by the definition of the Milevitan council, Can. 2. where speaking of the catholic Churches understanding of Original Sin, we have these words, Propter hanc regulam fidei, 
The Milev●tan council.  & parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semet ipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur, &c. Upon this rule of faith( the sense of the catholic Church, ubique semper, every where, and always) it is, that Infants are baptized into remission of s●ns▪ that what they have contracted by generation, may be purged by regeneration. And yet of Pelagius himself it is the affirmation of Eusebius Emissenus, Hom. 5. de Pasch. that he asserted the baptizing of Infants, though not propter vitam, for life, yet propter regnum coelorum, for the kingdom of God. Nay, S. Augustine cites it out of Coelestius the Pelagian, Infantes baptizari in remissionem peccatorum, secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae,& Evangelii sententiam, that Infants are baptized for remission of sins, according to the rule of the universal Church, and the appointment of the Gospel, l. 2. cont. Pel.& Coel. c. 5.  
This positive doctrine, I suppose, will not need farther confirming, it being their part, that attempt to invalidate a custom or usage, so authoritatively introduced, and so long continued, to maintain their improbable plea with demonstrative arguments. And till that be done, as in our nation it is acknowledged, that common usage is common law, and possession time out of mind, is not onely eleven, but the whole twelve points in Law; So in the Church of Christ( whose universal Rule hath always been that, which the first Nicene council hath made familiar with every man, {αβγδ}, Let the ancient usages continue in force) the proof of the usage, or practise, is all that can be expected for the vindicating of an Institution.  
The one thing then remaining, is to examine the arguments, that are produced against Infants Baptism, whether they have any thing in them thus demonstrative, or no; and, till somewhat appear of that nature, to resolve they are but suggestions of schismatics, which prefer their own singular, or private spirits, before the common spirit of the Apostolical Church of God.  
And of these arguments, the most diligent Collection that I ever met with, 
Dr. Taylors Collection of the Anabaptists arguments.  is that of my very worthy friend, Dr. Jer. tailor, in his Book of Liberty of Prophesying, where he hath so impartially enforced the arguments of his adversaries, that I know not where to furnish myself with so exact a Scheme, and shall therefore, upon that one account, choose to follow that path which he hath traced before me. And these 
{αβγδ}. p. 228. Num. 13.  arguments begin first Negatively, or destructively, by taking away the force of other arguments produced before in behalf of Paedobaptism. To which, first, I answer in general, that my present engagements give me no necessity of replying to this sort of the Anabaptists arguments, because they impugn not the grounds which have been laid in this discourse, but onely are brought to oppose those arguments, which either I use not at all, or onely by way of analogy and accommodation. And yet because I am not willing, that such fallacious reasonings should impose on any, I shall endeavour, in some instances, to show the frivolousness of them, so far as the Reader, or this former discourse, can be any way concerned in them.  
First then, when he invalidates the argument▪ taken from Circumcision, my answer is, That I have not used that argument any farther then thus, that by analogy with what was done in Circumcision, 'tis concluded reasonable, from Gods own judgement( in a case directly the same) that those may be entred sacramentally into a Covenant, which do not at that time actually know or understand the condition of the Covenant, as is clear, in the childes being circumcised. Now against this pretention of ours from Circumcision to Baptism, none of his exceptions do at all conclude.  
As first, That Types prove nothing, except a commandment go along with them, or some express to signify s●ch to be their purpose. To which I answer, That I do not make Circumcision a type of Baptism, much less prove any thing by its being such, I take circumcision to be one Institution of Gods, a ceremony of admitting Jews, and their children, into the old Covenant, and I pretend baptism to be another; in this agreeing with it, That it is a ceremony of admitting Christian Proselytes, and their children, into a new Covenant, not after the manner of the circumcision, but of the baptism of the Jews. For the truth of which pretention, if I had not other evidence, beyond that of the Jewish childrens being circumcised, viz. the practise of the Apostles, testified by themselves, and their successors of the first ages of the Church, that received it from them, I should never conclude it from circumcision: Because, though by the example of circumcision, it were vindicated from many of the exceptions that are thought to lie against it, yet I know it doth not follow, That whatever is not absurd, must presently be; that every thing is true, which is possible, or that what is lawful, was certainly instituted. And so against this stating of the matter, neither is [ the unagreeableness of the flood with baptism, in that one was a prodigy, the other not; nor of the Passover and the Eucharist, in that one had no prescription of sacramental drink, as the other had] of any force at all, partly because a parallel Institution is more capable of being argumentative to all particulars, then a type, so remote, as the flood is from baptism, and partly because, as the Eucharist is a ceremony founded in the Jews postcoenium, and not in their Paschal Lamb( which by the way, I suppose, Christ eat not at that time, the day before his crucifixion, because the time of eating the Lamb was not come, till the evening after his death, but onely had a commemorative Passover, at the beginning of the Paschal {αβγδ}, and therein instituted the Sacrament, being himself the true Paschal-Lamb that the day after was slain for us) and in that postcoenium there was a cup of blessing, as well as bread to be broken: so the Christians baptism is founded in( and is the accommodating of) the baptism that was among the Jews, and not in circumcision at all, as having no likeness with it, save onely in some extrinsical circumstances, as being both ceremonies of initiation into a Church, &c. In which consequently it may well agree with it, and( when the reason is absolutely the same) must; though in other things, where the reason is varied, it be allowed to disagree.  
So again, when 'tis said, that though there be a correspondence of analogy betwixt circumcision and baptism yet there is no correspondence of identity, though I confess I understand not what is meant by the latter of those phrases, yet I aclowledge not to believe the correspondence to hold in all things, among other reasons, for this, because I know females were not circumcised, which lying not against the baptism of the Jews, any more then it doth against the Christian, I there choose to fasten the correspondence, where I find so much more reason to do it.  
In this matter there is a reason of difference pretended, why circumcision should be proper for children, and baptism not, 
Num. 13.  because circumcision left a character in the flesh, which being imprinted on Infants, did its work, when they came to age, and baptism imprints nothing that remains on the body. But this, though it be already wholly avoided, by founding the Christian in the Jewish baptism, which had no external character on the flesh, and not in circumcision, which had, yet I will not cast it off so, but if it shall appear to have any force in it, aclowledge that it will hold in some degree against our pretensions. But, I suppose, it really hath none.  
For although there be that accidental difference between circumcision and baptism, that one mutilates, the other onely washes the body; the one woundeth, the other lightly toucheth, and cleanseth: yet sure that difference is of no force in this matter, for in respect of all others, but onely the child, i.e. in respect of God, and the Congregation, there arises no difference from hence: for, in respect of both, both are equally signs of the Covenant, and, in respect of men, the Registers being kept among Christians, as they were among Jews, the baptism of each will there be recorded, though it be not red in the forehead. And for the difference in respect of the child, 'tis certain that at that time, when it is given, to him it signifies nothing, because at that time he hath not the gift of interpreting the character. And that afterward he is able to do it, is certainly from advertisement, and instruction of others: For the character of circumcision signifies not naturally, but only voluntarily, or by Institution; else were the Ishmaelites &c. within the Covenant: and accordingly the child understands it not by strength of common notions, or as a conclusion from any principle in Nature, but as he is  told by others, both what was done to him, and what was the meaning of it, and therefore the same Law that commanded the Jews to circumcise, commanded them also to teach their children; and of that information, and instruction, the Christian, that was baptized in his infancy, is as capable, as the Jew that was circumcised, and the care of the Church may be as punctual now, as it was of the Synagogue: and if that were really conceived to be an objection, it would both give the advantage on the Churches side,( which appoints Undertakers and Sureties, which in circumcision was not appointed, and adds the promise of the Godfathers, to the duty of the parents, to secure instruction to them) and would rather persuade the providing of more Godfathers, or laying a stricter charge on them, then the removing of that Christian, ancient, innocent ceremony out of the Church, or those Godfathers that we have already.  
And if[ 
Num. 13.  the word] which in baptism is joined with the water, be also made known to the child, when he comes to age, as well as the nature of the Covenant, into which he was entred, there will then be as little force in the second part, or suppletory to the argument, as there was in the first, supposing [ the word] to be a part of the Sacrament, and to signify the words, that are used in Baptism, the form of baptizing in the name of the Father, and Son, and holy Ghost. But, I conceive, [ the word] which when it is joined with the Element, is by the Fathers frequently said to make up a Sacrament( Accedat verbum ad elementum,& fiet Sacramentum) may more properly signify Christs Institution of Baptism( for that is it that makes dipping or sprinkling with water, a Sacrament) and proportionably to that, the Text of Scripture, that gives commission to the Church, to receive, and embrace Christians children. And if that should be the notion of [ verbum, the word] it is then the Congregation onely, that is concerned in that, and thereby receives warrant for what they do, and the childes want of understanding, is no hindrance to it, any more then it is to the efficacy of the prayers of the Congregation, for the obtaining from God all those Christian graces, that, as soon as the child is capable of them, God can early grant, and, when they are received, the child make use of.  
So when he proceeds farther to invalidate the parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism, in these two respects: First, Because the Christian Infants are not baptized strictly on the eighth day, as the Jews were circumcised; Secondly, That the females are baptized, which were not circumcised: It already appears, That this is not of force against me, who do not undertake to make Christian Baptism parallel to Circumcision, but to the Jews baptizing of Proselytes, and that sure belonged to their females, as well as males, and was no more bound to the eighth day, then our baptism is, but yet was constantly allowed to the Proselytes children, as well as to themselves that were of full age.  
As for the placing the analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism( and so betwixt the adherencies of both) in the letter of the one, but in the spirit and signification of the other, that as Infants were circumcised, so spiritual Infants should be baptized, i.e. that they that are baptized should be children in malice, &c. That is, first, but a fancy, and a new way of making paralle●s betwixt Sacraments: for Sacraments, as such, are all significative, and so are both these, and in that sense both spiritual, and not one to be taken in the letter, and the other in the spirit. And indeed, baptism is no more spiritual circumcision, then circumcision is spiritual baptism, but both of them are rites of Initiation among the Jews, and one of them by Christ continued among Christians. And so for the adherencies of them; The baptizing of children may as well signify, that the men that are baptized, ought to be like children( or, as Christ saith, enter the kingdom of God as that little child, i.e. be children in malice, regenerate and born again) as the circunctsing of Infants may be said to fore typify it. The truth is, the spiritual child, i.e. the pure, and innocent, is equally the subject of both. All which, though it make it most reasonable, that they that are not circumcised, or baptized till full age, should then with vows of new life enter the Covenant of Mercy, that belongs to none but to such as do so, and undergo those significative rites accordingly; yet doth it no way prejudge the receiving of real Infants also, who( as children in wickedness, as well as in age) have as yet a small proportion of either, 〈◇〉 so are as capable in that sense, as the others repentance, and vows of new life, have rendered them.  
And if the Primitive Church did give milk and honey to the baptized, with that intention; to signify, that if they were men in age, they ought yet to be children in wickedness: All that that will conclude, is, That the little children were proposed to the men, as their patterns, if they aspired to baptism: and if these qualifications were necessary to be transcribed from them, to give the men a capacity of baptism, sure they, who had them in the originals, would not reasonably be thought uncapable, unless some other incapacity were proved against them, which is not yet pretended in this reasoning.  
The next attempt is to invalidate the inference, 
Num. 14.  which is said to be made from Christs blessing of Infants: Where, if the inference were, that all Infants are, i.e. ought to be baptized, upon this( and no other) ground, because Christ blessed them, I should aclowledge the conclusion to be weakly built: But when( as it hath formerly appeared) all the conclusion inferred by us hence, is onely this, That the Infants are capable of being blessed by Christ, though they understand not what Christ is; and consequently that it must be uncharitable in those, who deny them this means of Christs, for deriving this blessing to them, upon no other reas●● but because they do not believe, or understand. And when the contrary conclusion( pretended to be more probably inferred)[ that because Christ blessed these Infants, but dismissed them without baptism, therefore Infants are not to be baptized,] is so very far from being inferred probably, First, because from a particular omission, to conclude an universal unlawfulness, is most unreasonable; as if one should thus argue [ Christ, when he prayed in the Mount, did not then preach, but onely pray, therefore 'tis not lawful to preach.] Or, secondly, because though Christ baptized not those Infants before mentioned, yet 'tis for all that possible he might baptize other Infants. And thirdly, because Christ did not, that we know, baptize himself at all, Joh. 4.2. but appointed his disciples to baptize, as the Bishop now seldom baptizes, but ordains others to that function. Therefore, I say, for all these reasons, I suppose, the pretensions of that Section, Num. 14. are no way inferred against us, who do not so confine the power or mercy of Christ, as if he had no other way of bringing Infants to heaven, but onely by baptism, but aclowledge, that when the Sectary himself may for his schism and uncharitableness fall under the displeasure of Christ, the poor Infant, which is 〈◇〉 way guilty of the parents pertinacy, or unkindeness, may be abundantly supplied by the covenant and grace of Christ, without receiving this sign of it, and wanting the ordinary means, may be allowed extraordinary.  
And the same reply is sufficient to all that is added, Num. 15. for we that think and pronounce, that God may bring children to heaven which are not baptized, and aclowledge the unbaptised Infant, to be in that perfectly guiltless, and so unpunishable, in the justice of God, for the omission of the parents, do not consider or assert the Institution of baptism, as the appointing of a rule, without which the supernatural end cannot be attained, and therefore are guiltless of having argued invalidly in that particular. And if we were as confident, that God hath commanded Infants to be baptized, as against us 'tis pretended for the Anabaptists, that they are sure, he hath not commanded it; yet we that think no person punishable for the breach of a command, but him who knowingly hath despised, or omitted it, must conclude nothing, but good hope of the unbaptised Infant, and onely desire to reduce the Parent, or the Congregation, or Curate of the place, to the acknowledgement of their duty, which if neglected, may justly become blamable, and dangerous to them, w●… have neither the ignorance, nor impor●… of the child to pled for them.  
And this, as it is a full answer to that branch of the arguing( Num. 15.) so it is acknowledged as undeniably true, and built on Num. 16. viz. that whatever the consequent of Original sin is, either it shall not be charged on Infants, or that Gods goodness will secure them, if he take them away, before they can glorify him with a free obedience: which, and all the rest, which is added to that sense, in Num. 16. we aclowledge most true, as far as concerns the Infants present interests toward eternal life,( for we are far from the opinion of him, whose doctrine of the efficiency of that instrument, so signal, that where it was omitted, there was no place for hope, justly entitled him a hard father of Infants) but yet conceive there are other reasons beside those there name, why Infants should be brought, and received to baptism: wherein, as the Infants imperfect condition secures them from being blamed, or mulcted for the omission of baptism, so they that are of age to know what kindness, and obedience signifies, and so are capable of the crime, and guilt of being unkind, and disobedient, may fitly be admonished of their own sin and danger.  
One sort of those reasons, I suppose ●… self to know, viz. that children may ●… hus early received into the Covenant, and thereby, First, by Oath, and all other the most precious concernments and obligations, pre-engaged to the actions of a pious Christian life( as soon as they can be instructed in any part of this oath) without ever being adventured to the hazards of the contrary infusions, that the timely taking into the Church, may prevent the pollutions of the world, and Satan be supplanted, by this speedy giving up the name unto Christ. And secondly, that by the Promises of God also signed in that Sacrament, they may be more solemnly secured of a right in the inward assistances of the spirit of Christ,( which yet I hope will not without their guilt be withheld from them, in case they be not baptized) and the outward advantages, and prerogatives of being members of his Church,( such are participation of the prayers, and instruction of the ministry, and other benefits of confirmation, and the Lords Supper, which certainly belong not to them that are not baptized) as soon as ever they are capable of receiving them. And that certainly is much earlier for most of them, then that part of the age, wherein they can be supposed( by having been sufficiently instructed in the whole Christian doctrine, and having in full purpose of mind undertaken Christs yoke) to be voluntarily, and by free choice( without this obligation) rendered capable of that baptism, which belongs to those of full age, and for which the Anabaptist pretends. To these I may farther add, that as baptism is to Infants an Institution of Christ, so it gives a virtue to the external act, and words pronounced by the Minister, so far as to make them members of Christ, and children of God, and heirs of his kingdom. And this hath been the doctrine of the Church of God. Besides, the fear of being continued in the state of Original guilt, is to be considered also, and hath by the Fathers been generally considered in this matter, and without defining the damage to those, who have been, without their own fault, detained from it, the Church hath delivered it for certain doctrine, that children being baptized, have all things necessary to their salvation, and are undoubtedly saved.  
And though I could name no more of those reasons, yet as long as I ought to suppose an Institution of Christ, or practise of his Apostles to be founded in weightier reasons: then 'tis certain( or necessary) that I know, there will be no way to disprove the reasonableness of the practise, but by taking away the Apostolicalness of the ground, and so the no-fear of the Infants losing heaven by the p●●ents unkindeness, will never prove, That there is no-need of baptizing Infants, which is the sole pretention of the 16. Numb.  
And truly, that parents, who in this Section are supposed to convey Adams sin and punishment to their Infant-children, and do also know that it is taken away by Christ, but withall, that Christ commands all that desire to be partakers from him of that benefit, to be baptized, and so born anew of water and of the holy Ghost( though they, whose fault it is not, that they are not baptized, shall, I hope, never be punished, or deprived, without all guilt) should not contribute their utmost to the cure of this hereditary evil, and be instruments of conveying to them the Antidote, as they have been the conduits of the poison, and so join as far in the latter, as they are by the disputer confessed to be engaged in the former part of the solemnity, seems either a great sloth, or a great unkindeness, or an itch of disputing, and innovating, and is indeed much more heinous then any of these, a causeless disrelish, and fastidious contempt of an Institution of Christ. For all which, they that have no weightier exceptions against an act of charity, and another of obedience, then what are here produced, have sure no competent reward in their prospect, to recommend such unamiable, and unnecessary vices to them.  
This clears us from the reproach of that narrow conception of God Almighty, that because he hath tied us to the observation of ceremonies of his own Institution, therefore he hath tied himself to it] No, our doctrine is not pressed with any danger, or fear of such inconvenience; all that we conclude, is, That if God have tied us, we are bound to obey. And as, when we are allowed to aclowledge that God can bring a child into the world without the help of a Midwife, we yet think ourselves doubly obliged both to the mother, and the child in the womb, to bespeak a Midwifes presence and assistance to the first throw: so need we not be suspected to shorten Gods hand, or prejudge his power or goodness, if, as soon as the child is born in the world, we desire by the Ministers aid, to help it to a new birth, and introduce it into the Church also.  
That which is added in the close of that Number, that 'tis most unreasonable on our own head, to carry Infants to God this way without his direction] signifies little to us, who do not, what we contend for, in this matter, on our own heads, having certainly the continued example, and practise of the Church to go before us in it, nor, as we suppose, without his direction, which we think we can better infer from the Apostles practise, and clear that practise by greater evidence, and consequence from Scripture, then any man can pretend to do the contrary. And yet let me add, ex abundanti, that they that from analogy of an indefinite command of Christ( that of baptizing all nations) shall extend that command to the baptizing the Infants of the converted nations, when, if the analogy doth not exactly hold, yet it is thought to hold so far as it is extended( and for so thinking, the opinion and practise of the whole Church of God for so m●ny hundred years is produced, and no show of prohibition can be by any pretended against thus extending it) cannot, with any show of reason, be censured for most unreasonable; many things being very lawful to be practised, which are neither commanded, nor directed by God, as long as the contrary is not directed: and if such be practised upon grounds of supposed obedience, either to Christ, or his Apostles, or the Church of God, and upon charitative ends, they will be found as commendable, and as highly reasonable, as either disobedience, or uncharitableness, are unreasonable. So far is the conceit we defend, from being poor, and low( as, if it undertook to retrench Gods power, it might justly be supposed) or the action, consequent to it, to be too bold and venturous, unless excess of meekness, and fear of offending, may be styled too bold, or abundance of caution, and charitable care, too venturous.  
The same argument is again repeated Num. 17. without any farther improvement, and every word of it being wholly spent on Gods care of Infants, the Infants incapacity of doing acts in order to salvation, Gods immediate mercy to them, without any external act or ministry, or confinement to particular rite, and this as well now, as before the Institution of Circumcision or Baptism] may very securely be acknowledged by us, as far as concerns the child. Onely let me demand, whether the case were not somewhat altered in respect of a Jewish parent, after the institution of Circumcision, f om what it was before? and whether, if upon the wilful omission of circunctsing the child on the eighth day, the Angel should come and kill the child,( though the devils did not seize on him to torment him eternally) that mother, and that wife, that were guilty of this omission, were not a bloody mother, and wife, and, the death of this child being a punishment to the father, whether that parent that were thus punished, were not thereby supposed criminous, though the child were but hastened to heaven, and not hindered by this means? If this question cannot be answered Negatively, as I suppose it cannot; and if the Institution of Christ extended to Infants, as I suppose it doth, and hath formerly been testified to extend, there will then be nothing left that can be thought to need answer in the 17. Num.  
This again is the argument of the 18. Num. There is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this external ministry, much less for praevaricating Christs precept of[ Unless a man be born again, &c.] And 'tis already evident, that this is granted by us, and that it yields the opposers no kind of advantage against us. And when the conclusion is safely granted, the pains of confuting the reasons that are used to infer it, might, one would think, be securely spared also. But there are many things in that 18. Num. which are not rightly suggested, which, if they were, might be thought to have some validity in them, farther then the inferring the conclusion, which they are produced to confirm: As first, That water and the spirit, Joh. 3.5. signify the same thing, and by water is meant the effect of the spirit, cleansing and purifying the soul. These words I conceive to be so far from bringing any evidence of truth with them, that they do, one branch of them, sufficiently confute the other: for if the water were acknowledged to be really an effect of the spirit, yet would that be far from concluding those two words[ water and spirit] the same thing, because never any thing is the cause, or effect of itself, but when 'tis onely pretended, that by water is meant that effect, i.e. that the cleansing and purifying of the soul, which really is an effect of the spirit, is onely signified by the water; this is as far from proving the words to signify the same, as our affirming water to be the Sign, and purifying the soul the grace, and baptism, the rite of conveying that grace, can be deemed to conclude it our opinion, That water, and grace, and baptism, are all one. And then the onely thing to be interposed in this matter, will be; That men ought to be wary, that they do not suffer different things to be imposed on them, as if they were the same, nor believe a proposition to be evidenced by that explication, by which it is really confuted. If the meaning be no more then this, that the water signifies the spirit, considered in one effect of it, of cleansing the soul, then( though I think it signifies somewhat more also, a death unto sin, and a new life unto righteousness, in the sense that is affirmed by our Church, and interpnted 
Pract Cat. l. VI.§ 2. p. 310.  elsewhere, yet) I think, 'tis from thence clear, that it signifies not the same thing that the spirit doth, any more then a sign, and the thing signified, signify the same. The sign signifies the substance or grace; but the substance or grace is it, and doth not signify it. And this is no nicety, but the very thing wherein the difficulty( all that is in this matter) consists. For, supposing the water to be the sign of the cleansing power of the spirit, and so baptism by water the thing instituted by Christ, to signify the necessity of our being washed spiritually; Christs affirming the no-possibility of entering the kingdom of God, without being born again, both of water, and of the holy Ghost, and not onely of one of them, though it exclude not those that are guilty of no fault, in not being baptized with water, cannot yet be doubted to make baptism by water regularly necessary, and so( though not exclusive of all other means of Gods bestowing heaven on Infants, yet) unfit to be advisedly laid aside, omitted, or contemned by any, either for themselves, or for others, that are by God or Nature committed to their trust.  
But afterward, when it is alleged, that the aequipollence of these two, water and spirit, appears in its parallel place of Christs baptizing with the spirit and fire, I profess to believe it evident that those places are not parallel. The mention of baptism with water, and the spirit] was made by Christ to Nicodemus in a wide indefinite latitude[ Except a man be thus regenerate, he cannot enter, &c.] Joh. 3.5. and it referred clearly to the initiating men indefinitely( i. e. all men) into the Church,( proportionably to the baptism among the Jews, which was the ceremony of admitting all, both natives and proselytes, and their children) and belonged to all that would enter into the kingdom of God, to every Christian. But that of baptizing with the holy Ghost, and with fire, Mat. 3.11. was spoken by John Baptist of Christ, and by Christ to the Apostles, and refers to the descent of the Spirit upon them, and not upon all Christians. And what if, beside the literal fulfilling of it at Pentecost, there be morally more in it? i. e. though it signify the effect of the holy Ghost, and his productions on the soul; Yet, first, it signifies not the same production that water signified, the water was presumed to signify sanctifying grace, the fire, in form of tongues, signified the gift of tongues, that was given in it, and perhaps more, the fire, that should soon come out, and devour the gainsayers, the destructions that are elsewhere described by fire( and so in that place, v. 12.) that were soon after to fall on believers, when this last method was frustrated, and as Christ long before, so now the holy Ghost blasphemed also. And secondly, this doth not prove that water was not a ceremony instituted by Christ, to signify that production: which were the onely thing for the Anabaptists interest to be concluded by it.  
And whereas it is added, that Christ baptizes all that come to him, with the holy Ghost and with fire; and that attempted to be proved, because John tells the Jews, not Christs disciples, that Christ shall baptize them with fire and the holy Spirit, Mat. 3.11. i. e. all that came to him, as John did with water, for so lies the Antithesis.] To this I answer, First, that Johns saying these words unto the Jews, doth not conclude that all the Jews, that should come to him, should be baptized with fire, 'twere sufficient to the verifying of the words, that some of them, especially chosen, and for the use of all the other, were to be thus baptized, signally constituted Apostles, by that means, to preach to them, and all nations; and the Antithesis being acknowledged to be by way of comparison betwixt John and Christ, not by way of contrary opposition, might be very well made up thus, John used no higher element then the water in Jordan, but Christ shall sand fire from heaven, a much more convincing evidence of his power, on the heads of select witnesses to give them( more then an entrance of Proselytes) a commission of Apostles and Governors of the Church. And this is sufficient to show the unconcludingness of that pretended parallel.  
But I conceive it is yet farther distant distant from the truth, and that by the fire, which John tells the Jews they shall be baptized with by Christ, after the coming of the holy Ghost in tongues as of fire, and being contemned by them, was( as was before noted) meant the destruction of the obdurate Crucifiers. For so the two verses immediately encompassing those words, do seem to incline it, The ax is laid to the root of the three, therefore every three that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire, v. 10. that sure is a fire of destruction among the Jews, and upon that[ I indeed baptize with water &c.] a quenching as well as a cleansing element, and if you repent timely, I assure you from God the impendent ruin shall be averted; [ but he that cometh after me is mightier then I] and may in reason be expected to do more then I have done, baptize you with the holy Ghost, use all powerful means to bring you to repentance by the Apostles preaching over all your cities, after your crucifying the messiah, and if all that do no good, then baptizing you with fire also, immersing and overwhelming you over head and ears in that fiercer element( as afflictions are elsewhere described by {αβγδ}, being baptized, Mat. 20.22.) and accordingly it follows, v. 12. whose fan is in his hand, and he shall thoroughly purge his floor, that is the previous work of the Spirit, to purge, and separate the penitent from the impenitent, but the chaff shall he burn with unquenchable fire. And if, as the context inclines, and the event was agreeable, so that be resolved to be the meaning of the baptizing them with fire, then, as it may belong to the Jews indefinitely, i.e. the impenitent Jews of all sorts, so will it take away all appearance of validity to the objection. And I shall be content to conclude thence, that as the Infants of the believers were then to be baptized with water, so the believers, or obdurate, should pass through, or rather perish in the fire also. But this ex abundanti.  
And whereas the argument proceeds to acquire more strength from S. Peter, who when he had said, that Baptism saves us, adds by way of explication, not the washing of the flesh, but the confidence of a good conscience toward God, plainly saying, that it is not water, or the purification of the body, but the cleansing of the Spirit that does that, &c. I conceive the conclusion to be much larger then the premises: For all that S. Peter saith, is either to deny, and exclude the external sacramental Baptism from being available to salvation, without the addition of a good conscience,( which I do not pretend it is) or to define that baptism, which is available, to be compounded of an inward, substantial performance, as well as an outward s●gnificative rite, or to attribute more to the good conscience, or the {αβγδ} of that( not the confidence, but the inquiring, or seeking to God, as hath been shew'd) then to the bare outward washing, which still is no way of prejudging the use of that ceremony( any more then the precept in Joel, of rending the hearts,& not the garments, was a prohibition or interdict of that outward expression of mourning, the rending of the garments) but onely the due preferring of the more substantial part, and requiring that we do not leave out, through over-valuing the ceremony, the more precious, inward part of that Sacrament.  
And therefore if our Saviours speech to Nicodemus be supposed to be expounded, by analogy to this of Peter( by the way, it hath already appeared, that that other of being baptized with fire, is far from any necessity of passing for such a parallel) it will no way be consequent from thence, what is pretended [ that it can conclude for no man, that he is obliged to the rite of baptism,] nor will the same be at all made probable by Christs speaking those words, Joh. 3. before baptism was ordained. For, first, though baptism being supposed an Institution of Christ, cannot safely be neglected by those, that have received the faith of Christ; yet we do not think, that it will be available to him that doth not obey that Doctrine( which is the sum of S. Peters words) and secondly, Baptism being before this time, even among the Jews, the rite or ceremony of receiving Proselytes, and so of a metaphorical new birth( and therefore Christ wonders at Nicodemus a ruler in Israel, that he understood not those words of his) It is no way improbable, that our Saviour having before those words Joh. 3. received Proselytes, called, and entertained disciples, had accommodated this ceremony of the Jews thereto, and received them by baptism. For so we see it( Joh. 4.) spoken, as of a thing past, that the Pharisees had heard, that Jesus made, and baptized more disciples then John, whose title yet it was to be the Baptizer. And though it be added v. 2. that Jesus baptized not, but his disciples: yet certainly what they now did, was by Commission from him, as his officers, and ministers, and therefore though at his departure from the world the Commission was given them in a larger manner, as far as extended to all the world, Gentiles, as well as Jews, yet 'tis evident that ceremony was already ordained by Christ, as the rite of receiving believers into the Church, and conveying remission of Sins unto them, and being so used by the disciples of Christ, might very properly be mentioned to Nicodemus, as every ones duty, that would enter into the kingdom of God, though not so, as to exclude any that were not guilty of the neglecting of it, or as to avail any that were not inwardly purified, as well as externally baptized.  
And when 'tis added in the same Num. that the words of Christ to Nicodemus, do no more infer a necessity to give Infants baptism, then those other words, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion, and that thereupon the ancient Church did with an equal opinion of necessity give them the communion] To this I answer, by these degrees; First, that those words Joh. 6.59. of eating the flesh of the Son of man, &c. do no way appear to belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it being apparent, that at the speaking of those words that Sacrament was not instituted, nor till long after( the night before his crucifixion) and therefore that they are not at all appliable to this matter.  
And indeed from the whole context, Christs comparing and preferring himself before the Jews Manna, in respect of the miraculousness of the descent, and efficacy to nourish their souls, it is so unavoidably inferred, that their feeding on his flesh, is their believing his doctrines, and nothing else, that the Romanists, whose pretensions for the flesh and blood of Christ in that Sacrament, would be much favoured by this interpretation of this Text, do yet( the learnedst of them) disclaim it: and indeed S. Chrysostomes way of interpreting the 63 verse, It is the spirit that quickeneth, &c. is most clear, that as the soul is that which enlivens, and not the body, so 'tis not the fleshly hearing that profits any, but his doctrine received into their hearts, and not onely into their ears, that will quicken them into a spiritual life here, and that prove a foundation of eternal life hereafter.  
Secondly, supposing what the objection doth not prove, but suppose, that the place did belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that the words were exclusively set, as those others of baptism, that whosoever received not that Sacrament, were not capable of eternal life, yet seeing many circumstances are necessary to be taken in, to discern the full importance of any obscure place, it will appear in many respects very reasonable to make some difference between the persons to whom those Sacraments belong. For first, Baptism being founded in the Jewish rite of receiving Proselytes, may reasonably be thought to belong to all, that among the Jews were usually baptized, i.e.( as it hath already appeared) to the Infant-children of Proselytes,& agreeably it hath been deduced from the Apostolical practise, that Infants were baptized, whereas on the other side, that other Sacrament being instituted in their postcoenium, in all reason was to belong to none, but such as those that were at that, or are usually presumed to come thither, and those are not wont to be Infants, but onely those of full age: Or if the Eucharist were supposed answerable to the eating of the Paschal Lamb( as indeed it is not, it being the commemorative Passover onely, in the close of which this was instituted, and the Lamb not eaten till the evening after Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us) yet Infant children cannot be supposed partakers of that, because they could not come up to Jerusalem, where onely this Lamb was eaten, no more then they could eat standing, which was a rite of that Paschal Supper. And lastly, the Eucharist being ordained to be observed in remembrance of Christ, the Infants could not be due partakers of that, as in Baptism( supposing it the Sacrament of initiation into the Church) 'tis manifest they might be then initiated, that age being as capable of receiving such benefits, as it is of food, but no more capable of performing actions of piety, commemorating of Christ, &c. then it is of acting, or speaking, &c.  
And therefore, thirdly, if in any age of the ancient Church, that custom prevailed, of communicating Infants, it is apparent, that, as that was without any obligation from that place, Joh. 6.( and yet in all probability from a misunderstanding of that place) so the universal Church of Christ, which afterwards discerned that mistake, and disused that practise, did still continue that other of baptizing Infants. And if they that did thus, did so punctually define and distinguish in this matter, and were not at all moved by the arguments upon which they left off communicating of Infants, to leave off the baptizing of Infants,( but were rather more strict in observing it) Then what reason can be brought from hence, why they that desire to make use of the practise of that Church in the one, the leaving off to communicate Infants, should not think themselves obliged to observe it in the other; or indeed, that they that neither follow that age, nor that Church, where children were both baptized and communicated, nor that, wherein communicating Infants being upon reason laid down, baptizing them was thought sufficient, should yet think fit to draw arguments against us from the practise of the Church, whereby they will not themselves be obliged, and never consider what the Church hath done, to imitate it, but onely to furnish themselves with pleas to divide from it?  
Fourthly, if the ancient Church, having no Precept from Christ, nor Practise from the Apostles, were so tender, lest they should deprive Infants of any the most improbable part of their due, that they communicated them, and cannot truly be charged of a crime, though perhaps of a misunderstanding of an obscure Scripture in so doing,( for sure to give them bread or wine, was an indifferent ceremony, and as much in the power of the Church to use, as the giving them milk or honey) then what shall be said in excuse of an uncharitable age, that will rather venture to unravel all, to oppose an universal custom at least, nay an apostolic practise, and, as we have all reason to think, an institution of Christ, then retain an harmless innocent ceremony, of bringing their children into the bosom of the Church, to receive those benefits, of which they are capable at the present( such acknowledgedly is Christs benediction) and to be in a posture of receiving all others, as soon as ever they are capable?  
Fifthly, to speak yet somewhat more particularly of the ancient Churches communicating of Infants, As it is certain that S. Augustine, interpreting that passage of Christs, Joh. 6. literally of the Sacrament, founded on it the necessity of exhibiting it to Infants newly baptized, and pressed the Pelagians with this, as Ecclesiae totius dogma, the opinion of the whole Church: So these two things are observable of it, First, the original, from whence this was first derived to Infants, viz. the custom( very proper and laudable) of administering the Lords Supper to all adulti, or grown men and women, presently( the same day at least) after their baptism, from whence it came by degrees to Infants also. But then secondly, this was done with a considerable difference: Those of age received that Sacrament, sub utraque specie, under both kindes, both of bread and wine, but Infants onely under that of the wine, 
l. 1. de Sacr. c. 20.  if Hugo de Sancto Victore may be credited ( Pueris recens natis sacramentum in specie sanguinis est ministratum) adding that reason for it, quia tales naturaliter sugar possunt, because such are naturally able to suck. Thirdly, that when this of communicating Infants was left off, yet the custom of giving the Sacrament to the Adulti immediately upon Baptism, lasted longer in the Church, and is mentioned by Theophylact on the 10 of Luke: and so as this came in by mistake, it was deliberately, and upon grounds of knowledge left off again. Fourthly, that even in the ages wherein this was used, and with some earnestness urged by S. Augustine against his adversaries, it is yet by him mentioned but as a dogma or opinion of the Church( such are all the ceremonies of the Churches constituting) and neither as a Doctrine of Scripture, nor Tradition from the Apostles, as by the same S. Augustine, and those which are ancienter then he, the baptizing of Infants is affirmed to be.  
Lastly then, I conceive, that the giving of wine to the baptized Infants, differs much from admitting them to that Sacrament, and was at the most but an occasion of allowing them the Prayers of the Church, that they might be partakers of the death of Christ, and all the benefits thereof, which still was but the kindness and charity of the Church toward them. But then it is evident, that beside this, there is much more in that Sacrament, and particularly the offering to God our reasonable sacrifice, and plighting of our charity one to another, and of taking up Christs across, and so communicating with with his sufferings. And to this it is not pretended that Infants were admitted, either by themselves or their Sureties( as in Baptism they are personally admitted to the benefits of the Covenant, and by their proxies they vow the duties of the Covenant) nor consequently that they were brought to the Lords Table at the usual times of those administrations, but onely were allowed some minute parts of the holy wine, in imitation of what was solemnly done to the adulti on the day of their Baptism, and in compliance with the literal sound of the words of Christ, Joh. 6.53. And on the other side, througn the most flourishing ages of the ancient Church; we know that those that had been baptized in their infancy, but were not yet sufficiently instructed, were solemnly dismissed out of the Church when the Lords Supper was to be celebrated, most strictly interdicted to be present to see, or approach those holy mysteries, As is known by the item missa est, the younger sort were to depart, when the offertory-services began.  
In the next place Num. 19. is attempted the disproving of all argument brought in defence of Paedobaptism from Peters words, Act. 2.39. The Promise is made to you, and to your children.] To which I answer, That if any have made use of that very unconcludent argument, I have nothing to say in defence of them, I think the practise is founded on a better basis then so, and that the word children there, is really the posterity of the Jews, and not peculiarly their Infant children.  
As for the answer that Num. 20. is rendered to that place( on which I aclowledge to lay some weight) 1 Cor. 7, 14. [ but now are your children holy] I am obliged to examine that, and view it in its utmost force. The answer is, That [ those words signify nothing but that they are holy by designation, just as Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in their mothers womb, i.e. designed and appointed for holy ministries, but had not the Promise of the Father, the gift of the holy Ghost for all that sanctification, and just so the children of Christian Parents are sanctified, i.e. designed to the service of Jesus Christ, and the future participation of the Promises.] The invalidity of this answer will be discerned, First, by the method of the Apostles arguing in that place, for the cohabiting of the believing wife with the unbeleiving husband, &c. because the unbeleiving husband hath been sanctified by the believing wife, or else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: That must needs be this, Unless there were some hope that the cohabiting of a believer, should be a means to bring an unbeleiver to the faith, 'twould certainly follow, That their children were unclean. Now I demand of this pretended interpretation, Whether it be possible that S. Pauls argument should conclude, being understood in this sense? Suppose Jeremies, or John Baptists parents had been one a believer, and the other an unbeleiver, could it of them be concluded, if they did not, upon the hope of doing good one upon the other, cohabit, their children could not be sanctified by God, i.e. secretly designed to any holy ministry? This were absolutely to confine Gods designations, and predestinations of this kind, to none but the chilcren of believers, as if the child of parents, either, or both heathen, could not by God be made use of to his highest ministries, as well as a blaspheming and persecuting Paul, who yet, we know, when such, was so predestinate.  
It is known that Jeremies and Johns sanctification, or designation to holiness, was a work onely of Gods, and that depends not upon such accidental conditions, as is the cohabiting of the parents, and therefore cannot have place in this matter. And if it be said, that the meaning of the word is, that the children of such are not actually holy, but onely by designation, meaning by that, the designation of the Church, as jeremy was sanctified by the designation of God, and that the [ as] is to be extended no farther, then to compare them in respect of designations, and not in respect of those, by whom they were designed, then indeed as this is the onely way I can think of, to avoid the former absurdity, so it is in effect the confession of what we pretend to be the force of these words. For all that we understand by holy in that place, is, holy by designation of the Church, i.e. by Baptism, to which when they are brought by the Congregation, and admitted by the Minister, they are thus consecrated, and devoted to God; and if this be the onely way of avoiding our conclusion from that Text, the conclusion will be the more established, in stead of being weakened by it.  
And herein it is farther to be observed, That in fitting the parallel betwixt the holiness of the children in S. Paul, and of jeremy or the Baptist, this difference is acknowledged, that they two were designed to holy ministries, and these to the service of Iesus Christ, and the future participation of the Promises] which again seeing it cannot be said of Gods secret designation( for sure he may design those to this end, whose parents are neither of them Christian) must needs be applied to the designation of the Church, and then that is the very thing I mean by bringing, and receiving them to baptism( which is the designing, or devoting them to the service of God, and future participation of the Promises) and is all that I pretend to conclude from that place.  
There is but one thing in which that answer can be thought to be useful to the Anabaptists purpose, viz. that as Ieremy's being sanctified in the womb, was his being designed onely to receive, and not his having actually received the gift of the holy Ghost: So the ordinary Infants being sanctified, is onely his being designed to the grace of God, not his having actually received it. To which I answer, That this conclusion with some limitation( and that equal on both parts of the comparison) will be safely acknowledged by us, viz. that as jeremy, and the Baptist had not from the womb the gift of the holy Ghost, necessary for their prophetic office, as being at that time, through want of understanding, uncapable of exercising it, but yet had at that time that special favour of God( vouchsafed to, though unknown by them) of being designed to that special office of dignity, so the Christian Infant-children have not the gift of faith, &c. infused into them, as long as they are uncapable of exercising it, but yet have the favour from Christ and his Church, the favour of being designed to the participation of that, and other the like graces necessary for their state, as soon as they are capable of receiving them, unless they by satisfying their part of the Covenant, disengage God of performing his part of it.  
To the answer( insisted on Numb. 21.) to the words of S. Peter[ be baptized, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost] viz. that the receiving the holy Ghost there, was receiving the rite of Confirmation, and that not as an effect of Baptism, but onely a consequent of it] I shall make this return, That if the whole arguing be admitted, and granted by us, and so the conclusion from it, That those words recited, are incompetent to prove that the holy Ghost( which is there mentioned as consequent to) is received in Baptism, this will be far from assisting the Anabaptists against us: For first, we must have leave to take notice, That by this answer, the rite of Confirmation, and that entitled a mystery, is asserted from S. Peters words( though baptismal grace be not asserted) and I shall believe, that the acknowledgement of the Apostolicalness of that rite, may stand the Church in as much stead against the Anabaptists, as any other advantage, that could be pretended to from those words. For certainly, if the holy Ghost be given in Confirmation in that richer latitude,( as the state of the person confirmed is more capable) Then nothing hinders, but that by Baptism( an institution of Christ himself, which is thereby to have the precedence of Confirmation that pretends onely, though from, and under Christ, yet no otherwise then as by Apostolical institution) such lower graces may be given as that lower state is capable of: Or however the very receiving into Covenant, and being made capable of such superinvestitures, as this of Confirmation is, and with it of the holy Ghost, of which without Baptism they are not in that Text supposed capable, is a gift and benefit, and so a grace of baptism, very well worth the valuing. Secondly, that which of Baptism is not proved by those words there repeated, may yet( as far as by our former answers it appears to be asserted by us) be proved by other Texts, either single, or in conjunction with one another, as by that of the childrens being holy, in respect of their baptism, by that title of baptism that it is the laver of regeneration, compared with Christs words, Except ye be born again of water and the spirit, &c.  
But I shall not need to go farther then this Text itself, when it is recited entire, as now it was useful to the Anabaptists pretensions that it should be mutilated. For S. Peters words are, Act. 2.38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus to the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost: where, though the persons to whom he spake are not imagined to be Infants, but those that were pricked at the heart, v. 37. yet to this point, of Baptism being the means to convey the Promises, for which the argument sets indistinctly the holy Ghost, meaning thereby not all, but some graces of the holy Ghost, these words are a pregnant evidence. For leaving the {αβγδ}, ye shall receive] in the future, to the rite of Confirmation, yet still at present this baptism is {αβγδ}, to remission of Sins; That pardon of Sins, which is certainly a principal Promise, and a special and most valuable gift of God, is set down as an effect of baptism. And though for actual and habitual sins, such as are there spoken of, Repentance be also required, as to prepare for baptism, so to make capable of remission; yet in children that are not guilty of those sins, nor capable of that repentance, there is little appearance of reason from that place either to exact repentance, to qualify for remission, or to doubt, but, as habitual sins may be remitted by repentance and baptism, so, Original sin may be remitted by baptism alone without repentance, the very receiving into the Covenant of Grace, the Evangelical Covenant, which is the effect of baptism, being interpretatively the quitting us from that debt, and setting us right in the favour of God, and giving us title to the peculiar custody and protection of Angels, Matthew 18.10. till by our wilful breaches and perjuries, we again forfeit our tenor.  
I cannot discern any thing more in this 21. Num. which looks like an advantage against us, and may consequently want any reply. For that they that are capable of the same grace, are not alway capable of the same sign, as females among the Jews, that were not capable of Circumcision] is of no force against us, who know that females were initiated among them by Baptism, and that that is the thing for which we contend: and again, that beside the capacity of the grace, the Institution of the sign is also required to make any thus capable of the sign, and consequently that though they, for whom a s●gn is not instituted, are not capable of that sign, yet of another sign they are capable, which was instituted for them.  
And so likewise, that [ God doth not always convey his graces in the same manner, but to some mediately, to others immediately,] 'tis not our interest to question, who contend onely for the Christians observance of the Institutions of Christ, and so for the bringing all to Baptism, who are allowed to be admitted to it, and not for the confining the graces or mercies of Christ within any limits of ours, or the annexing them to the ministry of others so inseparably, that they that are not involved in the guilt, shall be involved in the sufferings or punishments of their neglects.  
To the 22. Num. which supposes the asserters of Paedobaptism to complain against God, and not to be content with him, unless they may baptize their children, taking exceptions that God did more for the children of the Jews] the answer will be brief, That there is no such complaint made by any of us, nor imaginable cause for such complaint, in case it were true( as we pretend it most false) that God had excluded our children from baptism. For truly, we look upon Gods In●titutions not as natural, but as mo●al instruments, and consequently no farthe necessary to us, then God hath willed the hold be, and therefore conclude that God, who instituted Circumcision among the Jews, a seal of their Covenant, but not instituted it to us, will make good his richest Promises to us, though we be not circumcised. All our complaint is of men, not of God, in respect of him we look upon it as a mercy, not an unkindeness, that our children are not obliged to such a bloody rite, as Circumcision was,& should confess ourselves an adulterous generation indeed( though we conceive Christs words do little belong to that matter) if we should seek after that sign. But of men, who being freed from a bloody ceremony( by the blood of Christ, who was himself circumcised, and therein  shed blood, but soon after nailed that to his across) will not yet allow Christ to continue a much more gentle rite, and that also of old required of them, while they were under that heavier yoke, and who being so guilty themselves, complain of us for complaining. Of these, I say, though it be not very seasonable to complain, we may have leave to request this one favour, That we may not be deemed their enemies, because we tell the truth, and have no other design imaginable in this dispute, but to reduce them to a due value of, and obedience to Christs Institution.  
For the other particulars in that 22. Num. which make a difference between Circumcision and Baptism, in respect of the remanency of the sign in the flesh, but not of this, &c. we have already spoken sufficiently. But when in the close it is pretended, That we are guilty of the greatest vanity in the world, in affirming, that unless the mercies of God be consigned in baptism, we shall want the comfort of it; I must, as formerly I have done, answer this, by disclaiming the Argument which the Paedobaptist is supposed to use, and to which this is justly objected. For, as in respect of God, if it were granted; That his Promises were made without any sign at all, we could absolutely rely on his Word, and never think he could falsify that, and so want no comfort in respect of that, so now that we are persuaded, he hath instituted this sign, we shall never be deprived of our comfort, by being deprived of the sign, unless when it is done by our own default, and so we are deprived of our innocence also. For if through the presentness of danger, we are intercepted the liberty of calling for the minister, from him regularly to receive this sign, or when by his unkindness, or neglect of his duty, or by an inroad of Schism we are deprived of, and denied that privilege of bringing our Infants to baptism, we can very comfortably depend on the Promise of God, that our infelicities shall not be our guilts, much less the injustices of others, the betraying of those innocents, and so we shall not want comforts, either when we look on our unbaptised children, or reflect on our selves, who diligently sought it for them. All the uncomfortableness of our condition is, to see the Institution of Christ laid aside, the practise of the Apostles, the perpetual usage, and Canons of the Church despised, and ourselves scoffed at, as Formalists, or Impostors, that desire to reduce our brethren to the unity of the Church, from whence they are departed, and to the obedience of Christ, in all his Ordinances and Institutions, which is a part of that meekness, and charity, and peaceableness, that was so passionately by Christ recommended to his disciples, and without which no man hath right to that appellation.  
The 23. Num. begins thus, Now since there is no strength in the doctrinal part, the practise and precedents Apostolical and Ecclesiastical, will be of less concernment, if they were true, as is pretended, because actions Apostolical are not always rules for-ever. That the Practise Apostolical should not be of much concernment in this matter, will appear strange to any, that remembers but this one thing, That Baptism is a Sacrament, that Sacrament an Institution of Christs, that Institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth, but onely in the pos●tive Will of Christ, and so that there is nothing considerable in this question( or any of this nature) but how it was delivered by Christ. And when any question arises of that, or such like fact, and that not fully determined by the words of the Institution set down in the story of Christ, Is there, or can there be any thing of so much concernment imaginable, as the Apostles practise; and, after that, the Precedents Ecclesiastical? When, concerning the other Sacrament of the Eucharist, any question is made of the meaning of the words of the Institution in the Gospel, can there be any better way of judging, then by knowing the Apostles sense of such words; or surer way of discerning that, then by their practise, especially if it be set down by themselves? Certainly, this is not a matter for Reason to judge in, unless it be by deducing consequences from Christs words, or the Apostles, or one or both of their practices. For matters of fact, as these are, Testimonies are our onely Arguments of probation: And of them, whose Testimonies are authentic, and who cannot be deemed to have regulated their practise by any rule, but that of Christs Institution, nor to have been deceivable, or fallible in judging of that, Practise is the most lively, and infallible Interpreter.  
And if the rule be not universal, that All actions Apostolical are always rules for ever: yet when the actions are of such a sacred, and public nature, that all the succeeding world are as much concerned in them as they, and when it is the action not of one Apostle alone, upon some private impellent, but of all in conjunction, doing the same thing, and when in a matter of divine Institution, wherein to do any thing contrary to the intention of Christ, is to violate that trust reposed in them, as Proxies, and Commissaries; and lastly, when there is no character in the action, nor propriety in the circumstances of it, to conclude their practise a temporary practise, designed for the present onely: When, I say, all these concur,( and when nothing interposes to the contrary) to make their practise a rule for the future Church, there is little gained by pretending against us, that actions Apostolical are not always rules for ever; when the practise is once granted( and in this part of the discourse it is supposed) then to render it unconcludent, or no rule for ever, it would be necessary to show the grounds of doing it, proper to those circumstances, and not compatible with others, and not to throw off, upon a bare possibility or probability, that it may, that which no way appears to have been designed temporarily. Nay, that which was done by the Apostles, if it were not a rule for ever, was yet an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ, and interpretable by this practise to be so, there cannot be a better way to prove, then the constant practise of the following Church, who, if it were but a temporary Institution, cannot be deemed ignorant of that, or fit to be instructed by us in it, and who cannot be imagined to have universally joined in a conspiracy, to retain that for ever, which they knew to be otherwise designed by those, from whose practise they took it.  
One reason or motive is offered us in that 23. Num. why the baptizing of Infants might be convenient in the Apostles times, till they had engaged a considerable party, and not after, because 'twas then the new-spring of Christianity, and so it might be useful, by this means to make them parties against the Gentile-superstition, and, by praeoccupation, to ascertain them to their sect, when they came to be men. And truly, if this were a motive for the Apostles to baptize Infants at that time, to keep them by this early praeoccupation from being heathens; then, First, there is to be acknowledged some use of baptizing Infants, though they understand not then what is done to them, nor yet have any remanent durable quality impressed on their flesh( which was formerly argued against:) And secondly, 'tis evident, That that reason is still as perfectly in force, as ever it was, the danger being ever since as great among us, that vicious practices( as contrary to the Law of Christ, and irreconcilable with the Promises, as the heathen superstition was) will earnestly, and irresistibly insin●cate themselves, if there be not early means used to prevent them. And the vow of Baptism is as distinctly opposed to these, and the Grace of Christ( implored and bestowed there) as effectual to the preventing, or supplanting of them, as of heathen superstitions it could be supposed to be.  
And for any other reason not transmitted to us] I confess not to be moved with such remote, and onely possible fears, nor to apprehended( any more then I can be bound to answer) the force of a reason, before it be made known to me. And the rather upon this confidence, that if this reason in the Clouds, this reason not transmitted to us, had yet been transmitted to former ages, and by those accounted to be of any weight, It is not imaginable, that through all time, that reason would have been opposed by the contrary practise of the purest, as well as less pure ages, and never have prevailed with any, till it met with an handful of men in these last and worst dayes, to whom also 'tis supposed in the argument, that the reason was not transmitted, to which it is consequent, that it did not come down to them.  
In the close of that 23. Num. 'tis again interposed, that the question of fact itself is not sufficiently determined, and the precept of baptizing all nations doth as little advantage to prove it, as any of the rest, because other parallel expressions of Scripture, expound themselves to a sense that includes not all absolutely, but onely those that are of a capable condition, as[ Worship God, and, Sing to him all the nations] To which I answer, First, that I do not believe, or pretend that that precept of Christ doth necessary infer ( though it do as little deny) that Infants are to be baptized, and so this argument thus produced for the Paedobaptist, is another of the blind and the lame, that are of more use to betray and loose, then defend and secure that fort, in which they are placed. Secondly, it is less reasonably pretended, that we should think this place, which is onely a Precept, to be a Proof of the fact, as that signifies( and so it must) the practise Apostolical: And yet thirdly, the instance that is produced to hinder this Text from concluding, is very infirm also: for though in a command to Sing and Worship, given to all nations, they that can do neither, cannot be supposed included, yet in a command of doing that to others, of which all others are equally capable from those, to whom the command is given( as sure 'twas as easy for the Apostle to baptize the Infant as the grown man) there is no reason to determine or restrain it. And that is the case in hand, where the command is not given to all nations to seek, or prepare for Baptism, but to the Apostles to gather and baptize them, and of being carried and washed the child is cap●ble, though of acting and adoring it be not capable.  
To the answer Numb. 24. rendered to a like argument, pretended to be urged by us from the mention of Stephana●'s family [ that it is but a conjecture at the best] I return my explicit consent, and think it unreasonable that the Apostles bare mention of baptizing his household, 1 Cor. 1.16. should be thought competent to conclude, that Infants were baptized by him, when it is uncertain, whether there were any such at all in his house. What use is to be made of such testimonies as these hath formerly been set down, so as to yield them unconcludent to this matter; and therefore I shall not need to say any more of that, but that inconcludent arguments are more advantageous to the enemy, then to any man else, and are the most favourable account that can be given of the Anabaptists Schism from the Church, that seeing some such arguments insisted on, which they justly believed to be of no force, they likewise persuaded themselves, that others of greater strength, were of as little, and though not by them, were yet by some other as easily to be avoided, and answered also.  
The 25. Num. proceeds to consider Tradition in this matter; and, First, to disclaim all value of that allegation, Tradition being rejected by the Reformed Churches: And secondly, to demand how, if the topic from the Tradition were good, Tradition could be truly pretended for this? To both of these the answer must be jointly given, first, by defining, then by distinguishing of Tradition.  
For first, the word Tradition signifying no more then delivering, 
Of Tradition.  and that metonymically taken by S. Paul for the thing delivered, i.e. either for practices or doctrines delivered by word of mouth, or by Epistle, and yet farther brought by custom of speech, to denote those peculiarly, that were delivered by word of mouth, though not by writing. It is evident that what is thus truly delivered, is of the same authority with that which is truly written, supposing the person that speaks or writes, and the deliberation used by him to be the same in both cases, Thus it is certain, that what is spoken, and so delivered by S. Paul, is as truly the doctrine of S. Paul, and also that what is spoken by him, hath all the authority that belongs to him, as much, as what is written by him.  
A Tradition then being thus defined, that it is either a practise, or doctrine delivered by word of mouth, it must in the next place be distinguished, and that, first, in respect of the persons, whose practise or doctrine it is pretended to be; and secondly, in respect of the means, by which it appears to be truly his, whose it is pretended to be. In the first respect it may be either the doctrine, or practise of Christ, or of his Apostles, or of some following Governors of the Church, or of some other either later, or inferior to them. In the second respect, it may be either sufficiently, or else insufficiently testified, to be the practise, or doctrine of those, whose it is pretended to be.  
This definition and distinction being thus premised, and it being most improvident to define any one thing of that, which contains things so distant under it, it, will be as unreasonable to make use or the authority and practise of the Reformed Churches, to abandon or cast-off Tradition in general, and without discrimination, all Traditions, as to conceive that they that rejected errors for appearing to be such, resolved, whensoever they should find truths miscalled by that name, to re●ect them also.  
The first question then will be, What sort of Trad●tions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches? and then, Whether the baptizing of Infants be of that sort? and if it be, to give over all farther pleading for it.  
First then, I shall suppose, that whatsoever doth sufficiently appear to be the practise or doctrine of Christ, or his Apostles, howsoever it appear, or by what way of conveyance soever it come to us, will not by the Reformed Churches be rejected under the notion of Tradition. For this I am sure was wont to be the question betwixt the Reformed and the Roman Church, not whether that were to be received, as Christs, &c. which did sufficiently appear to be his, though it were not written, but whether many things were not falsely affixed to him, and the Apostles, as delivered by them, which did not sufficiently appear to descend from them. Or again, in matters of inferior nature, Whether that which is by the Romanists affirmed to be the practise or doctrine of the Governors of the Church, the Apostles successors in the Primitive times, can sufficiently be approved to come from them; or whether it be not of some inferior or later original, to whom that authority and reverence is not due, which is acknowledged, and willingly paid to the former.  
And therefore, having no necessity to descend to any more minute considerations, the whole matter will be resolved into this one enquiry, Whether the baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the institution of Christ, or Practise Apostolical? and if it do, we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition; and if it do not, we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea, or inferring our Conclusion.  
And because the way of satisfying this enquiry, is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject, this whole discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one basis, the Institution of Christ, and Practise of the Apostles, It will be unreasonable to do this any farther, save onely upon a brief recapitulation, to refer it to the judgement of any sober Christian, Whether first, by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish custom of baptizing of Proselytes, which appears to have belonged to the Infant-children of the Proselytes; and secondly, by his being so far from excepting against the age of children as a prejudice, or hindrance to their coming to him( i.e. to their Proselytism) that he affirms them to be the pattern of those, of whom his kingdom is to be made up, and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to baptize such( when indeed Jesus baptized not at all, but his disciples) yet he took them into his arms, and laid his hands upon them, and blessed them, Mar. 10.16.( which being the ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism, and distinctly preparative to it, they that were by Christ afforded that, cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism then of that;) And thirdly, by the express words of the Apostle, that their children are holy, interpnted by the context, so as to infer from the apostles way of arguing, That it was the custom of those apostolic times to baptize the children of the Christian parents, and so interpnted by the Christian writers of the first and purest ages; And fourthly, by the Testimonies of all the Ancients, that are found to speak of this matter, without any one pretended to dissent, that this was the practise of the Apostles: Whether, I say, these four things being put together( the truth of each of which hath been before more largely evinced) it be not sufficiently evident, that the baptizing of children is of the Institution of Ch●ist and Practise Apostolical. If it be not, I desire to know what is farther necessary to sufficient conviction in a matter of this nature, and whether by any more( or equally) competent arguments, the contrary may be evinced to be the Practise of the Apostles, i.e. that they refused to baptize the children of their Proselytes.  
But if it be, I shall not need to take notice of the other branches of that Num. 25. For first, by the Testimonies already produced out of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, as well as Origen, and then by the express words of the Author of the ecclesiastic Hierarchy, and of the Constit●tions, and of S. Cyprian,( to which might be added S. Jerom and S. Ambrose) as well as S. Augustine, it is clear, That the Authority for the Tradition, depends not wholly on the Testimony of Origen, as the one person from whom S. Augustine had it. And secondly, there be other arguments to join( and which are in force by their conjunction) with these Testimonies for the Tradition, so far, that although it were yielded, that Justins and Irenaeus's, as well as Origens affirmation might be fallible, that baptism of Infants is by Tradition from the Apostles; and again, that S. Augustine might have it from Origen, and be fallible also, yet when those other circumstances concur with that, which is affirmed by Origen, and no testimony or circumstance in the Institution be producible against it. And Augustine, and the following Church, which condemned all Origens errors, doth yet appear to agree with Origen in asserting this, as truth, certainly the aspersing of Origen in other respects, will not invalidate, or weaken his Testimony in this.  
So again, when it follows, that the nec ssity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church till the eighth age after Christ; this will be of little importance against us, supposing the meaning of that to be, the desining it absolutely necessary to the salvation of the child. For we do not pretend it to be thus necessary, necessi●ate meaii, but derive the necessity of it from the Institution and Practise of Christ, and his Apostles, and charge that onely upon the parents, and the Congregation, whose guilt it is, if the ordinance be neglected, or despised, but not on the Infants, whose want of understanding renders them uncapable of contumacy, and wilful sin, though not of being baptized or brought to Christ.  
And thirdly, it being granted by the objecter, that Paedobaptism was by Canon established in the Milevitan African council, Ann. Ch. 418. yet, as long as it is also confessed, that it was practised in Africa before, there will be little concluded against us. For what stood by Apostolical practise, and known custom, needed not to be prescribed by Canon, as that which prevails by force of a greater, need not be assisted by a weaker authority. And indeed, while the footsteps of so authentic a Tradition were so lively, and no adversary, or disputer started up, no question, or opposition yet made against a Common Usage, 'twere ridiculous for councils to convene, and fortify it by Canons. And so the onely thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons, is, that all that while it was universally received without opposition: I mean not, that no Infant of any Christian was unbaptised, through the space of those first Centuries, but that the extending of the Institution to Infants was not opposed in the Church, till about Pelagius's dayes, whose opinion of Original sin( utterly denying the guilt of it on Adams posterity) was such, as might consequently produce some change in his opinion of Paedobaptism. But of that I have formerly spoken§. 46. As for the saying of Ludovicus Vives, Neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari, it is not of such weight, as that I should here stop to examine the truth, or grounds of that citation, the book being not present by me to do so: I suppose it belongs to the Infants of heathens.  
But Num. 26. the undertaking is somewhat more considerable, viz. that there is very good evidence from Antiquity, that Infants ought not to be baptized: Whether this be justly suggested, it will concern us to inquire warily. For it is affirmed to be clear in the sixth Canon of the council of Neo-Caesarea. The words of that Canon are these, {αβγδ}. A woman with child may be baptized when she please: for the mother hath nothing to do with the child, because it is each ones will or resolution, which is expressed or signified in the confession( or profession, which is wont to be made in baptism.) This certainly is far enough removed from a clear affirmation of what was undertaken to be proved by it, viz. that children ought not be baptized. For as for the latter part of the words, which is conceived to do so, it is no more then this, that the confession, or profession of a woman, that being with child is baptized; doth onely belong to her self, not to the child, and consequently that her baptism belongs onely to her self also. The words being a proof of what is immediately antecedent to them, that the parent hath nothing to do with the child, {αβγδ}, hath nothing common with him, but hath {αβγδ}, a will or choice peculiar to her self,( as {αβγδ} is opposed to {αβγδ}, peculiar, or proper to common) And so all that can be concluded from hence, is, that the child of such a parent, that was baptized, when that was in her womb, must, when it is born, have a baptism for itself, and the baptism of the parent not be thought to belong to it. And this in opposition to the conceit of some Jewish rabbis,( taken up, it seems, by some Christians) who say, Si gravida fiat proselyta, adeoque lavaero suscipiatur, proli ejus baptismo opus non est, that if a woman great with child become a proselyte, and be baptized, her child needs not baptism when 'tis born.  
As for the giving demonstration of election or choice required in the baptismal confession, of which the child is supposed incapable, this place doth no farther affirm of it, then it is known to be acknowledged by us, viz. that no baptism ought to be administered but upon condition, and supposition of a vow to be undertaken then, and after to be performed on the part of the baptized, which, as in those of full of age, it must be done by themselves; so that in Infants it is not sufficient to be done by proxies and undertakers, is no way affirmed, or intimated by that Canon, which belongs quiter to another matter.  
And for the known custom of interrogating the Cate●humeni in baptism, and the pretended egregious prevarication in asking questions of them, who are known to be uncapable of giving answers; this is of no farther force then the usual exceptions against Godfathers, and that custom hath 
Pract. Cat. l. VI. §. 2.  elsewhere been sufficiently vindicated, and as far as the present objection presses us, is justified abundantly by the capableness of the sureties, or proxies that free the action from all prevarication, and the obligation that from thence devolves upon the child, as soon as he comes to years of understanding, which will make up and supply what other defect soever can be imagined in that matter.  
This of the unreasonableness of supplying the childes incapacity by the answer of the Godfather, and no sensible account to be given of it] is farther insisted on Num. 27. And the means to prove this unreasonable, are these, 1. That the pretence of the Roman custom of stipulation performed by Tutors in the name of their pupils, is an absolute vanity.] To this I answer, That the Tutors being, by reasonable men, and by the Roman Law, allowed to stipulate, and bargain for his pupil, as it is perfectly agreeable to the case in hand( the Infant exactly parallel to the Pupil, his real no-will, to the others no-will in Law) so it is an example which will justify this practise from the censure of unreasonable, and egregious prevarication, and to that it will be consequent, not that God must be tied, and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Roman Laws, but that it may without prevarication( in any degree) or unreasonableness, be thus appointed and transacted by them in this case, as in other kindes of stipulations it hath been without danger of such Censure.  
For as to the case of a notable benefit accrueing to the minor, wherein Stipulation is said by indulgence to be permitted; First, this is not true in any circumstance. Secondly, if it were, 'twere as reasonable in Baptism, as in any other case: First, tis not true that was a permission by indulgence, for it was a known distinct Law, the Tutor may stipulate for the minor as freely, and in all cases, wherein the man of full age may stipulate for himself, and not onely in case of notable benefit accrueing to the minor, but in case of ordinary and equal bargain. And secondly, if it were but an indulgence, and permission of grace, why should not the Christian child be as well, and as kindly treated by Christian Religion, as the minor by the Laws of those heathen Romans? And be the benefit accrueing to the minor, never so notable, yet being supposed but a temporal benefit of this life, sure the favour of admission into the Church, to be a member of Christ, to the grace of present pardon, and right to all the benefits of the Covenant, as soon as they are capable of them, may deserve to be compared with that notable benefit, that the minor is supposed to be concerned in. And though again God can, and, I doubt not, will bestow those benefits and advantages on that child, whose fault is not, that they are not so consigned to him, this still is a mercy of his, which will no way justify them, who contemn the use of this Sacrament.  
But it is farther enforced, that though 'tis true, God might, if he would, have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of the children, yet we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath; and if he had, 'tis to be supposed he would have given them Commission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances, and given answers with more truth, then to say in the childes name, I do believe, in present, when the Infant is uncapable of believing. For answer to this, it must be recounted, what was the original practise in this matter. Among the Jews, saith the 
Tit. Cherub. c. 1.  Gemara Babyl. the Infants used to be baptized {αβγδ} upon the profession, or confession of the house of judgement, the Consistory; and the gloss saith, the Triumviri are set over baptism, and are necessary to it, {αβγδ}, and so they become to him a father: and 
Tit. Isuri Bia, c. 13.  Maimonides, {αβγδ} he must be baptized before the Triumviri. By this it appears, that among the Jews, from whom Christ was pleased to transcribe this sacred rite of Baptism, this custom also was to be found of the Congregation, or Rulers thereof, to answer for the Infant, according to that forecited from S. Augustine, that the Church lends them others feet, and heart, and tongue, to come, to believe, to profess, &c.  
Among the first Christians in the Apostles age, the same use seems to be continued: For the custom then being to baptize those of age, onely by proposing to them the faith of Christ, and reformation of life, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, Acts 2.38. and whole multitudes, 3000. on a day, receiving the faith on these terms, and being baptized, v. 41. without any greater formality of question and answer; nay the word {αβγδ}, 1 Pet. 3.21. noting not an answer, but a question( such as is mentioned Act. 2.37.) on his part that is baptized, and so a coming to God as to the Oracle, seeking, making address to him, desiring upon Christs terms to be received by him, there is no difficulty to understand how children being brought by others, that were themselves baptized, were baptized also upon their request, and upon this general declaration of the ends of Baptism before the Congrega●ion, which were the terms on which the Infant was supposed to enter into that Covenant. But soon after, when the Church was formed into standing Congregations, and the vow of Baptism was contrived into a settled form, then, as every Catechumen or instructed Proselyte answered for himself, so every one that was not able to do so, was by some persons of the Congregation( in this particular representing the whole) brought to the {αβγδ}, or font, and the questions being asked in the baptism of the adulti, those that brought them, and so helped them to legs, were their proxies also, and helped them to tongues, and so answered in the present tense, i.e. in the same form, wherein the adulti did answer, which signifies not their affirmation, that those Infants did then actually believe( which is the thing charged of untruth) any more then a Tutor stipulating, as the proxy of his Pupil, can truly be said to affirm, that the pupil makes such a bargain, of which he knows that he knows nothing. All that is understood by such speeches of the Godfathers is, that this is the manner of proxies stipulating for others, and that unless those others, when they come to full age, think fit to perform in their persons what was thus stipulated by their proxies, they shall reap no benefit of that Covenant.  
And this is all that is chargeable on these answers, far from any degree of untruth, if truly understood,( for the Godfather bearing a double person, is supposed to say truly in his own, that he doth believe, and as the others proxy, he desires that his profession may be in Law accepted for the other, so far as to make him capable of baptism, the sign of Gods Promises) no more indeed then most ceremonies, and forms of Law may be said to be, the designs of which are sufficiently known by sober men, and accordingly the words are to be interpnted, I believe, i.e. This child stands bound by these presents to believe, and is not to expect any benefit of this Covenant, except, when he comes to years, he do actually( and de praesenti then) believe all the articles of the Christian faith, &c. for which we that do believe them all have now in his behalf, and to his benefit, undertaken it.  
And whereas it is added as the advice of Tertullian, that, Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, praecipuè circa parvulos, that delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially about Infants, and, quid enim necesse est sponsores periculo ingeri, &c. What need is there that the Godfathers should be put upon dangers? and then that Gregory Nazienzene makes mention of some, to whom baptism was not administered {αβγδ}, by reason of infancy, and that the parents of S. Austine, S. jerome, and S. Ambrose, although they were Christians, yet did not baptize those their children before they were thirty years of age. This heap of exceptions will neither singly any one of them, nor all in conjunction, conclude any thing against us. Not that of Tertullian, which pretends to conclude no more, but that in his opinion it was, in some respect, advantageous to make some stay of baptism, and that especially in the case of little ones, which if it were granted, yet will not that advantage of delay, conclude the baptizing of Infants unlawful, or wholly inconvenient, any more then the baptizing those of age, where delay, in his opinion, might be useful also. But on the contrary, 'tis a clear testimony of the practise in his time of baptizing children, as well as others, and hath been so applied by us, in the former part of this discourse among the testimonies producible in this matter. And so likewise is the other passage for the usage of Godfathers, or sponsores in the Church in Tertullians dayes. What the utility was, which Tertullian had in his view, or how well grounded his advice, I shall not need now to inquire, his words being a plain proof of the usage in his time, and therefore not producible against us.  
And for Gregory nazianzen, who is acknowledged to be for hastening of baptism in case of necessity, and so to aclowledge a necessity of giving Infants baptism in some cases( which is more then sufficient to our pretensions) If in his time there be mention of some, who were not baptized {αβγδ}( granting that to be tenderness of years, and so infancy, whereas it may be otherwise, ignorance, or want of instruction in those of elder years, {αβγδ} is {αβγδ}, an ignorant, or weak person of small understanding, as well as {αβγδ}, in Hesychius) yet sure this will conclude nothing against us, who are able to make the same relations in these times, of some that have done more then so, absolutely withheld baptism from their dying children, and yet know that the doctrine of the Church in this age is contrary to those singular practices. And that it was so in Gregory Nazianzens time, may be demonstrated by his doctrine in this matter, {αβγδ}. Orat. 40. What wilt thou say of children, which neither are sensible of the loss, nor the grace? shall we baptize them? Yes, by all means, in case of urgent danger. For it is better to be sanctified, i.e. baptized, without sense of it, then to die unsealed, unbaptised. And not onely in case of danger, but absolitely, saith he, {αβγδ}. Hast thou a young child? let not wickedness receive the advantage of time, let it be baptized from an Infant, let it be early consecrated by, or to the Spirit, ibid.  
And for the example of the parents of those three Fathers, it will not be producible against us, unless it be also assented to, and approved by them that urge it, and so it be defined exemplary, and imitable not to baptize any before that age of thirty. That baptism in those Fathers times, and before their birth, was afforded children, is too well known, to want proving. And S. Augustines doctrine is confessed to be extremely contrary to the Anabaptists pretensions: And the grounds of deferring the baptism of some in that age, were not such as were allowed by the then present Church, but effects of an opinion of the greater( not of the less) necessity of baptism, and so the unfittest evidence, that could have been pitched on, to infer the desired conclusion.  
For the Clinici, we know, would not be baptized, till their death-beds; and the reason was, because being to be baptized but once, and attributing so extremely much to that ceremony, and hoping so little for pardon of sin from any other instrument, they durst not be baptized too early, lest they should sin again, and have no remedy, And the deferring baptism till thirty or forty years old, was but a spice of this fancy, attributing so hugely much to baptism, and so nothing to any thing else. But then they that did so, were the most impatient of any to miss baptism, when they thought they were near their last, and would never sin so far against their hypothesis, as to let any Christians Infant die without that viand, and so doing what they did upon a score so contrary to the Anabaptists, it were strange if it should be producible in favour of them.  
For the 28. Num. which is the proving Paedobaptism to be against the perpetual analogy of Christs doctrine, the first offer of a reason is, because Christ never gave precept to baptize them, nor ever himself nor his Apostles( that appears) did baptize any of them. To this the answer is already given, that Christs baptism being founded in the Jews custom of baptizing of Proselytes, and the custom among them being known to be this, to baptize the Proselytes, and their children, the indefinite command of baptizing all nations, was all that was needful to comprehend the children also of those, that received the faith of Christ, especially when Christ, by a special expression of his pleasure concerning Infants, assured his disciples, that they were capable of solemn benediction, which by parity of reason will conclude, they were not uncapable of baptism also.  
As for Christs not baptizing any, that will equally be of force against all baptism, for the Text is plain, Christ baptized not, but his disciples, Joh. 4.2. And for the Apostles, 1. the negative argument will be of as much force for us, that the Apostles( that appears) never rejected any from baptism,( nor probably durst, after they had been rebuked by their Master for somewhat of that kind, Mar. 10.14.) as it can justly be deemed against us, that they did not baptize any. The truth is, neither of them is argumentative. But then 2. that in the Apostles times children were baptized, seems plain by that place to the Corinthians, and then there will be little reason to doubt, but the Apostles did baptize such, at least( which is all one) hat they confirmed and approved that practise.  
The next proof of the proposal, is from Christs and the Apostles requiring such previous dispositions to baptism, of which Infants are not capable, viz. faith and repentance, as appears by that one place, Mar. 16.16. He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned. To which I answer, First, that in those that are capable of faith and repentance, both those are thus previously required, and in those that, through invincible defects, are uncapable at the present, they are again required so far, that if, when they are capable, they have them not, baptism will stand them in little stead. And this is all that can be concluded from that place of Mark: For sure that sentence of damnation shall not sall on him that believes not, unless he were capable of believing. Nay, secondly, it is evident from the words, that Christ doth annex belief to Baptism, as a necessary adjunct to it, at that present, for he saith not [ He that is baptized and believeth] but onely adds Baptism to belief,[ He that believeth and is baptized] and so belongeth not to this matter.  
But because in the progress of that Num. there is, I see, no more concluded from that Text, then that if children are excused from a necessity of faith, so that the want of that does not regularly damn them, then 'twill be sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of Baptism. I shall need reply no farther, being perfectly reconciled to the conclusion, as far as concerns the excusing of the child, and not having the least fear, that the child shall ever suffer for anothers negligence in this matter. But then still the child having a capacity of susception of Baptism, i.e. of being baptized, though not of faith or repentance, or neglecting or seeking of baptism; they that deny the child that privilege, of which it is susceptive or capable, may become uncapable of that excuse, when the innocent Infant stands in no need of it.  
As for the question, Whether Infants have faith, Num. 29. I shall profess to be none of those, who are concerned in it, I freely confess to believe faith to be so necessary founded in understanding, that they that have not understanding, cannot have faith, whether actual or habitual; and when the Apostle saith, that faith cometh by hearing, I suppose he hath fully stated that question. For whatsoever can be said of infused habits, those must suppose the subjects capable of them, or by being infused, render them so. As the gift of strange tongues, when 'tis supernaturally infused, must either suppose the subject predisposed with understanding, and ability of speaking some language, or must make him so by that infusion. And besides, what graces are imaginable to be infused into Infants, will in reason be concluded to be infused at Baptism, or as effects and consequents of that, and so will be equally unfit to qualify for Baptism( which is to be done by previous dispositions) as if there were no such habits acknowledged.  
And so the reason taken from the Infant sent to the Mahumedane Province] is yet stronger, then is pretended. For, unless the Infant, that is to be baptized, be before his Baptism so imbued by divine overshadowing, or infusion, that, if in stead of being carried to the font, he should be carried to a Priest of Mahomet, and there circumcised, and instructed in the Turkish principles, he would yet, as he came to years of understanding, produce acts of Christian faith, there will be little reason to affirm, that Infants of Christians have habitual faith, previous to their Baptism.  
The same inconveniences, I suppose, will lie against seminal faith in Infants, First, because if that be taken in, as a suppletory, to give the child capacity of baptism, it must then be supposed previous to, and not bestowed in, or after baptism: and secondly, 'tis apparent that the seeds of faith are sown in instruction, or catechizing( and so, as faith cometh by hearing, so doth hearing by the word of God) and they grow not up, till they have been thus sown.  
As for the imputative faith, I suppose they that speak of it, mean no more then thus, that the children of Christian Parents, though they have not faith actually, habitually, seminally, may yet lawfully be admitted to Baptism, because their Parents being Christian, and they likely to be brought up in a Christian society, this may so far stand them in stead, that upon presumption of the care of the Parents( who desire Baptism for them) that they shall be brought up in the faith of Christ, and upon the present undertaking of the Godfathers( which are by the Congregation appointed to represent the child, and stipulate in his name) they may( though they are at the present uncapable of faith, or new vows) be admitted to Baptism, and so pre-engaged, before any rival lust, or false profession be able to solicit them. And it this be the meaning, then, though it cannot be said, that they have imputative faith, for they have not faith themselves, and other folks faith will never be imputed to them so, that they shall be thought to have it, yet it may truly be affirmed, that they are looked on to this purpose as kindly, and are as fit to be hospitably received by the Church, i.e. to be baptized, as if they had faith, the extreme probability of the hope at present, that they will be competently instructed, when they come to years( and that secured as well, as humanly it can be) being sufficient to found their Baptism upon, though it be not certain that they will ever believe; As the profession made by one of full age is his sufficient qualification, though the Church is not sure that he is not an hypocrite at that minute, or that he will not be an Apostate the next, and, when persecution arises for the Word, be straightway scandalised.  
The 30. Num. demands, If baptism be necessary to the salvation of Infants, upon whom is the imposition laid? upon the parents, or the children? Not the children, for they are not capable of a Law; not the Parents; for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others. To this I answer, by renouncing the whole hypothesis affixed, by this way of arguing, to the maintainers of Paedobaptism. For we do not at all pretend it necessary to the salvation of Infants, upon the very ground that the disputer presumes it unnecessary, because it being acknowledged by all that it is not the omission, but contempt of Baptism, that damns, these two are not distinguishable in children, who can no more be said to omit, then to contemn it. All the necessity we pretend to in this matter of Infants, is praecepti, not medii, not that it is a means, without which they cannot be saved, for then the argument would hold that they might be damned, or not saved by anothers default, without their own, but that, first, having foundation in the institution of Christ( as that being founded in the Jews baptizing of Proselytes, belonged consequently to their young children also) and secondly, authorised farther by the Apostles Practise, and thirdly, used through all ages of the Church accordingly; and fourthly, when the perverseness of heretical men questioned and opposed it, defined by councils; and fifthly, at length commanded by the Church. From hence, I say, the necessity results, and not from any other principle. And this being understandable onely by men of age, is not excusable to be given to any others, and so the guilt in this matter is acknowledged to lie onely on those, i.e. either on the Parents that refuse, or neglect it, dislike, or seek it not for their children, or on the Ministers, who refuse to give Baptism, or on the disputers, that infuse these scruples unnecessarily into mens heads, or on the factious, that break the unity of the Church on such causeless dislikes as these, and in stead of returning to the Church, exclude all regular obedient sons thereof from their communion.  
The 31. Num. proposes some inconveniences, which the baptizing of Infants rushes men upon: The found●tion of which is laid in this dilemma, Either Baptism produces spiritual effects, or it produces them not, &c. To prevent all force of thus arguing, I say, that if by spiritual effects are meant grace and glory, Baptism of Infants produces not such effects, and consequently they are not the nearer to heaven, if they are( i.e. as an effect from a cause, by their being) baptized, nor, if it be neglected, the farther off. And consequently the argument that supposed without all peradventure, that all Paedo-baptists would say, that their baptism did produce spiritual effects, is presently at an end. All that we say of Baptism is, that it is a federal ceremony of Christs Institution, to wash away Original guilt, and to admit us Proselytes unto himself, by his Church, the conduit by which Christ is pleased to convey grace, and so gives us a solemn legal seizure of the advantages and benefits of the Covenant( all that at the present they are, or for the future shall be capable of) on condition they perform on their part( as soon as they are able to perform it) what on their part is promised in their names: wherein if they do not willingly fail, as, in case they die in infancy, 'tis certain they do not, there is no question, but the mercies consigned in Baptism, may by Gods gracious supplies belong unto them. And it being as certain, that when, without any fault of theirs, they are unbaptised, that defect will never be charged upon them for evil, it must be resolved, that those advantages that are consigned in Baptism, are not effects produced by it, and consequently that the inconveniences or rocks imagined in that arguing, have been without that admonition very cautiously foreseen, and avoided by us.  
As for the sum of the argument compacted into little, that either Baptism is a mere ceremony, or it impl●es a duty on our part: if a ceremony onely, how does it sanctify? if it implies a duty, how can children receive it, who cannot do duty at all? I answer, that it is a sacred ceremony, which contains in it a duty to be performed on our part, as soon as we are able to perform it, but requires it not of us, whilst we are unable. And this is a perfect answer to all that follows in that Number, charging us to make Baptism a mere outward duty, a work of the Law, &c. which is all unjustly imputed to us, who do as verily believe it an inward duty, shadowed by the outward ceremony, when 'tis used to an Infant( and that, the being baptized into Christs death, and the crucifixion of the old man, &c.) as when 'tis used to the grown man; onely with this reserve, that it is no sooner, nor farther required of either, then they are capable of performing it.  
As for the syllogism, that whosoever are baptized into Christ, have put on the new man, Gal. 3.27. But to put on the new man, is to be formed in righteousness, and holiness, and truth, Eph. 4.24. therefore they who are not formed new in righteousness, &c. they who remaining in the present incapacities, cannot walk in newness of life, &c. they have not been baptized into Christ. The answer is obvious, that in the mayor Proposition, the words of the Apostle[ have put on Christ] must necessary be interpnted not of actual putting him on, for 'tis certain that many men that have been baptized, have not actually done so, It is clear in Simon Magus, Act. 8.21. and in all that bring not( as Cyril saith in Praefat. Cat. p. 1.) {αβγδ}, a genuine purpose along with them to the baptistery, and 'tis certain, that the Apostle could not so understand it of any of those Galatians, to whom he then wrote, whom he acknowledged to be foolish( {αβγδ}, without understanding, and if that be not as great, 'tis yet a more desperate incapacity, then being {αβγδ} babes) and bewitched, or seduced not to obey the Gospel of Christ; but so onely, as to note the obligation that lay upon them from their Baptism, and from thence the presumption of the Apostle; that they had undertaken and resolved it. As many as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, i.e. are most strictly obliged thereby, and are presumed to have resolved, and undertaken to put on Christ, and the new man. This is all that is deducible from those words,( unless I farther add, that they have the prohibens, the obstacle which kept Christ from them or them from Christ( i.e. original guilt) removed) and that is as truly affirmed of the Infant, as of the grown man, with the same reserve again, when he shall be able to perform it; as the {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, as Arian calls it, the Promise of every reasonable creature, when he hath first leave to become such, the {αβγδ}, the oath inessentiate with us, i.e. the obligation that our Creation lays upon every child of Adam, is actually required of those onely that are of age to perform it, but may be in the mean time presumed even in the womb of the Mother to be undertaken by us; This by our being designed to the use of reason, as that by our being Proselytes to Christianity.  
The same answer suffices for that which is brought from S. Peters definition of the saving Baptism, that 'tis not onely the washing with water, but the {αβγδ} of a good conscience. For this is as true of that Baptism which belongs to children, as to any other, onely the duty of it is not required, till they come to years, and ability to perform it, and then, if they keep not a good conscience, it will be little available. And if this be of any force against baptizing Infants, it will have been of the same force against circunctsing them, since S. Paul, Rom. 2.28, 29. doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumcision, as S. Peter here doth that of Baptism.  
It is added in the close of that Numb. that vows made by persons under others names, stipulations made by minors, are not valid, till they by a supervening act, after they are of a sufficient age do ratify them. But this is not exactly true, as it is set, and as far as it is true, 'tis not prejudicial to our Pretensions. For first, Stipulations made by minors, or by the Tutor in the minors name, are valid by law, as long as he continues in minority, and when he comes out of that, then it is in his power to rescind, or annul the bargain, or on the other side to confirm it, and if he do so, it needs not to be by way of new stipulation( which is a matter of more solemnity in law) a bare confirmation under hand and seal, gives it a perpetual unretractable validity. And just so it is in this case; The Covenant is entred into at Baptism, the stipulation made by the Godfather in the name and behalf of the Infant, and remains valid to all uses, so long as the child remains so. Afterward, when he comes to choose for himself, if he like not the bargain that is made for him, he may rescind it, and turn heathen again, or he may ratify it, and then by undertaking the vow of Baptism deliberately, and upon judgement, in his own name, he is capable of Confirmation. And this is so far from proving that which is for the Anabaptists turn, that it is fully satisfactory to all his pretensions against it. For whatsoever defect he complains of in Paedobaptism, or entering into the Covenant by Proxy, is supplied and repaired by Confirmation, which is the renewing the vow of Baptism in his own name, and being superstructed on Baptism, is the performing all that, which in the child is supposed wanting to the consummation of that Sacrament.  
And therefore when it is demanded, Why the Infants( i.e. I suppose, children catechised) may not as well make the vow de novo, as de novo ratify that which was made for them ab antiquo, when they come to years of choice; I answer, that the reason is, first, in respect of the matter, because it is unnecessary, and wholly useless; Confirmation will serve the turn as well. And that being granted, a second reason will be taken from the Authority of the Church, and express Canons of councils, and, I suppose, from the apostolic institution of Confirmation. All which are sure of such weight to any obedient son of the Church, that in a matter so perfectly lawful on that side, that the institution lies, It is not onely safe to comply( and that is enough against the Anabaptist, who pretends it unlawful) but matter of obedience, and Christian duty, which obliges us to submit to those, that are set over us, at the least, not to separate from any for no other crime, but of obedience to these parents of ours, in such lawful( perfectly lawful) Commands.  
Num. 32. proceeds to prove the Anabaptists way the surer, and the onely medium is, that it is most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity, and it can have no danger. For to say that Infants may be damned for want of Baptism, is to affirm that of God, which we dare not say of any wise and good man. To this I answer, that I am absolutely resolved, that no child shall be damned for want of Baptism, and that upon the very reason rendered, because it is not a thing in their power to acquire, they being persons not yet capable of a law, and consequently not capable of transgressing it. But this doth not yet conclude it the surer course, nor yet so sure, as the contrary, because that which hurts the Parents, or those, whose soever the duty is to bring the children to Baptism, cannot be said to be innocent. And indeed, the very supposition, that the Infants incapacity of the command secures him from receiving hurt by the omission of Baptism, implies, that, if it were imputable to him, it would do him hurt, and therefore must be deemed to do so to those, that being capable( and now offered matter of conviction by this Paper, both from the institution of Christ, and Practise of the Apostles, and the usage, and( at length, when it was needful) commands of the Church, not to deny it to Infants) do still with contumacy reject, and vilify it. And for proportionableness to acts of human Reason, it is certainly most so, in providence to take the surest for all sides, That in case there be any necessity of it, more then we are ware of, in case any blessing of a present benefit, either from the Protection of Angels, or from preparing and predisposing grace to the child, accompanying the Parents obedience, or the benediction of the Church, then by bringing the child to Baptism, we make sure of it, but make no such provision by omitting it.  
Numb. 23. is a congeries of charges, every one of great weight, but without offer of proof of any one of them, I suppose, upon a presumption, that they are proved before in the former arguments, which if it be a due presumption, then by the same reason I may flatter myself, that they are not to be causes of new trouble to us, now that the precedent reasons, which are thought to infer those odious conclusions, are each of them answered in the premises.  
Onely to the last branch, that they that baptize Infants invocate the holy Ghost in vain; the addition of these words [ doing as if one should call on him to illuminate a ston or a three] being reducible to some show of a reason, why it should not be done, My answer is, that an Infant, that hath the first power, or faculty of reason in him, which a ston or a three hath not, is truly capable of receiving benefit by this prayer, if not while that first power is not reduced into act, yet afterwards, whensoever it is, and if it may be but one minute the earlier illuminated, or one dram the more effectually endued with preventing and inciting grace, in answer to those prayers of the Church, this sure will be a testimony and evidence, that the prayer is not in vain. And if that may not be, it will be hard to affirm, and prove, that any thing else may be advanced, or wrought by that means, and then all other prayers( if the Anabaptist will allow any) shall be concluded to be vain also.  
I have passed through all the several heads of arguments, that are here proposed, and considered them, as nicely as I could, so as not to let fall one word that seemed to me to have any show of validity in it, or in the consequence of it, and must consent to the truth of the Authors observation, that the Anabaptists have been encouraged in their error more by the accidental advantages given them by the weakness of those arguments, that have been brought against them, then by any truth of their cause or excellency of their wit. And indeed, though against the arguments premised by this Author, in behalf of Paedobaptism, the contrary arguments have seemed unto many, to have been successful and victorious, yet against the grounds, which have here been briefly laid for this practise, in the beginning of this discourse, and against the practise, as 'tis stated and maintained by us, it will, I believe, be soon discerned, that neither any, nor all of them, will be appliable with any advantage or success.  
If I had the sagacity to foresee, or had been so diligent, as to observe any other head of Objection, or exception against this practise of the Church, I should now farther enlarge this Paper to consider it, but being not sure, that I have any reason to do so, and having shew'd how far Christ, and his Apostles, and the Church have gone in this business, and how little excuse any intelligent person can probably have, in rejecting the uniform result of all these, I shall join fraternally and cordially in the conclusion, and be no forwarder, nor no more peremptory to prescribe to others, then these Authorities will justify me to be( certainly not so forward as the Anabaptists, or Antipaedobaptists are to prescribe to us, and to charge on us things of some weight( if Num. 33. say true) the polluting the blood of the everlasting Covenant, &c.) And God forbid, we that desire to reduce dissenters to the unity of the Church, and cannot probably have any other design or aim in that endeavour, but the eternal good of others, should ever think of damning, killing, or persecuting any that dissent in this or any other particular.  
Our desire is that of Ignatius, {αβγδ}, to alloy the sharp humour, by applying the soft Word, and to cure by embrocation, not by caustics or excision. And I think it but duty to pray against that treacherous prosperity, which should be able to infuse any greater degree of unkindeness, or roughness into the mindes of men, whether sons, or fathers of the Church, then what I here avow to be strict duty in every Christian.   

The fifth Quaere. Of Imposition of Hands for Ordination.  
TO the next question concerning Imposition of hands for Ordination, although much may be said, yet I suppose that which is necessary to the satisfaction of any reasonable man, may be contrived within a moderate compass, First, by examining the words, by which it is expressed, and in one of them the Ceremony, Imposition of hands, which is used in it, and then proceeding to that of which it is the ceremony, the office, or power conferred by it.  
For the first of these, there are four words used in the New Testament to express this matter: First, {αβγδ}, 
The words by which Ordinat●on is expressed i● Scripture. {αβγδ}.  Tit. 1.5. to constitute, where Paul is said to have left Titus in Crete, to constitute Elders in each city. Secondly, {αβγδ}, a word that literally signifies to stretch out or hold up the band; but being used among the heathens for choosing, or any sort of suffrage, or giving of sentence, which among them in popular Judicatures, or choices, was wont to be done by that ceremony of stretching out, or lifting up of hands, it is in vulgar use among heathen, and Jewish, but especially among Christian Writers, brought to signify, without any respect to giving of suffrages,( indifferently, whether by one, or more) constituting or ordaining, which is directly all one( and no more) with {αβγδ} before name.  
This is not so generally acknowledged by late Writers, but that it may be useful to give some few Testimonies of it, out of those Writers which were nearest the times of the Scripture. Thus Philo Judaeus of Joseph, {αβγδ}, He was ordained Governor of all egypt under the King, where it is clear, that without any others suffrages, he was by Pharaoh so constituted, Gen. 41.40. Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Thou shalt be over my house: and Psal. 105.21. He made him Lord of his house and Ruler of all his substance; and Act. 7.10. the very word[ {αβγδ}] is used of it, Pharaoh constituted him Governor over egypt, and over all his own house. So again of Moses, {αβγδ}, He was constituted their Ruler, not by any choice of theirs, but onely by Gods appointment. So of Aarons sons, {αβγδ}, God constituted them Priests. So in Josephus, Ant. l. 13. c. 5. Alexander son of Antiochus Epiphanes writes to Jonathan, {αβγδ}, We( i.e. I, in the regal style) constitute thee chief Priest of the Jews, and to be called my friend. So Lucian of Alexanders kindness to Hephaestion, {αβγδ}, that he made him a God when he was dead. And when the word is used of the Romans, as oft it is in Appian, Dio, &c. it must necessary be taken in this sense, because that of election by lifting up of hands was not in use among them, but onely among the ancient Grecians. For the use of it among Christian writers, it is most evident, that it belongs not to elections by the suffrages of many, but to Ordinations by single Apostles, Take one place for many, in the Author of the Constitutions, l. 7. c. 45. {αβγδ}, Clement after the death of Linus, was ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter, and Timothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by Paul, and John by John. Where it is evident, that three single persons, S. Peter, S. Paul, S. John, are each of them, in several Congregations, affirmed to ordain Bishops▪ and this word peculiarly chosen to express it. And though there be question made of the Author, and Authority of those Constitutions, yet sure for the use of a word their Authority is sufficient, and might be backed with many others, who have never been questioned. By all which it appears, that the word is simply used for constituting, without any consideration of any ceremony of lifting up, or stretching out hands, whereby it was done. And thus it is used in the New Testament, Act. 10.41. where Christs disciples are said to be {αβγδ}, designed, or foreconstituted by God, the witnesses of his Resurrection. So Act. 14.22. of Paul and Barnabas, {αβγδ}, constituting, or creating Elders in every Church. Where they that have looked so far back to the original of the word, as to think it necessary to render it suffragiis creare, to create by suffrages, are sure guilty of very impertinent nicety: for to say that they created them by their own suffrages, is to say no more but that they jointly did create them, and indeed being but two, there could be no place for suffrages; and to affirm they did it by the suffrages of others, is not agreeable to the pretended use of the word: for where it is used of choosing by suffrages( as when the people are said {αβγδ} to stretch out their hands, and choose) it is certain that their own, not others suffrages, are meant by it.  
The like mistake it is, whereby {αβγδ}, Act. 1.28. 
{αβγδ} Act. 1. mistaken.  is( in favour to some mens interests) rendered, Communibus calculis annumerabatur, he was by joint suffrages chosen, and numbered with the eleven Apostles, merely by looking on the original of the word, and the parts of it taken asunder, {αβγδ} with, and {αβγδ}, to number, or to choose by stones or the like, whereas 'tis clear, First, that mathias being there chosen by lot, was not chosen by consent, or suffrages of men; and secondly, that {αβγδ} signifying originally two things, 1. giving sentence, or voice by stones( on which the custom was in elections to inscribe a name, Rev. 2.17.) and 2. to number by stones, as counters( whence {αβγδ} is expressed in Hesychius by {αβγδ}( as that signifies counting) as well as {αβγδ} judgement) it may most probably in that place signify no more then [ was numbered] and so be all one with {αβγδ}, he was numbered with us, v. 17. and that explained by {αβγδ}, he obtained his portion in this ministry, i.e. office Apostolical: Or if it should possibly refer to the notion of election, must denote Gods choice of him, v. 24. by the disposing of the lot to fall upon him( and not any suffrages of others, which cannot be appliable to that matter) and in composition with {αβγδ} signifies no more then was expressed v. 22. {αβγδ}, his being by the lot joined with the eleven, to be an Apostle or witness of Christs Resurrection.  
But this by the way, which yet was seasonable to be added here, because in that place {αβγδ}, if it should signify choosing, would be all one in effect with {αβγδ} before-mentioned, neither of them relating to the manner of choosing, but both simply denoting to constitute, or appoint.  
By all which appears the no great weight or solidity of those Grammatical contentions, concerning the 
See Zonaras and Balsamon on the apostle. Can. I.  identity or difference of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, the[ {αβγδ}, hand] which is the same in both, persuading some for the identity, and the difference betwixt extending, and laying on, persuading others that they differ: whereas the truth seemeth to lie( as most commonly it doth) in the mids between the contenders, the agreement betwixt them being not from the common mention of the hand, but upon another score, because {αβγδ} signifying to ordain, and constitute in general, with out referring to any ceremony in doing it, may fitly( seeing it doth not exclude any ceremony) be used for the ordaining a Bishop, who is constituted with that ceremony of imposition of hands( and accordingly Theophylact on 2 Tim. 1.6. in stead of S. Pauls, {αβγδ}, by imposition of my hands, hath, {αβγδ}, when I ordained thee Bishop: and when Johannes Antiochenus mentions Evodius being made Bishop of Antioch, he expresses it by {αβγδ}, he received Episcopal Ordination, and many the like) and the difference between them, on another account also, because {αβγδ} imposition of hands, together with that of constituting, denotes also that particular ceremony used in some, but not in all designations and constitutions, and so must needs be of a narrower extent, then the other is, which belongs indefinitely to all, and doth not refer to that, or any other ceremony.  
The short of it is, {αβγδ} signifies originally stretching forth the hand, and though that stretching out may be preparative( as it is in Jacob, Gen. 48.14.) to laying on in benedictions, yet being of an heathen, not Jewish origination, as in vulgar use it is taken for any kind of appointing, or constituting, so onely( and in no other respect) it is made use of in the Scriptures of the New Testament, for the constituting, or designing to any office in the Church, whether by God, or by men,( Apostles, that derived power from God) or by the whole Church, as in the nominating one to travail with Paul, 2 Cor. 8.19. 
2 Cor. 8.19.  and that is all that is meant by, or can be justly collected from the Word.  
A third word there is once used Act. 13.2. {αβγδ} 
{αβγδ}.  to separate] the holy Ghost said, Separate unto me Paul and Barnabas for the work, the same word that is used Exod. 13.2. 
Exod. 13.2.  in consecrating to God the first-born, designing, setting them apart to those uses, to which God hath called, or shall please to employ them.  
The fourth and last word is( that which was even now mentioned, and now must more largely be spoken of) {αβγδ}, 
{αβγδ}.  imposition of hands; which, how, or by what peculiarity it belongs to this matter, must briefly be explained.  
To lift up the hands was a ceremony in prayer, 
Imposition of hands in the Old Testament.  Exod. 17.11. and accordingly to lay the hands on any( differing no otherwise from lifting up, then by the determining that action to a particular object, the person that was prayed for) was generally among the Jews a ceremony of benediction, used first by the father to the children, in bestowing the blessing upon them( and with that the succession to some part of his estate, the inheritance) as appears in Jacobs blessing the children of Joseph, Gen. 48.14. 
Gen. 48.14.  he stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraims head, and so his left hand on Manasses, and so he blessed, &c. v. 15. from thence it was accommodated among them to the communicating any part of power to others, as assistants, or to the deriving of any successive office from one to another. Thus when Moses had from heaven received, and long used his commission, to be, under God, the ruler of the people, and first, the Seventy Elders were by Gods appointment assumed to assist him, Num. 11.17. 
Num. 11.17.  and part of his spirit was by God put upon them, v. 25. this, saith Maimonides, Sanhedr. c. 4. was done by Moses laying hands upon them. And at length a little before his departure out of his life, when a successor was to be provided for him, God commands him to take Joshua, and lay his hands upon him, Num. 27.18. 
Num. 27.18.  and that as a token of his putting his honour upon him, v. 20. i. e. making him the successor in integrum of the whole dignity, and authority, which he had enjoyed so long, that, as the Text saith, all the Congregation of Israel may be obedient, paying him the same observance, that they had paid to Moses. And accordingly it was done, Moses laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, v. 23. i. e. by that ceremony derived to him the authority, which himself had had, constituted him his successor in that Government. And so 'tis repeated again, Deut. 34.9. 
Deut. 34.9.  Ioshua was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him, and the children of Israel hearkned unto him, &c. And so for those seventy Elders( that were, by Gods immediate descent in a cloud, constituted assistants unto Moses, and consequently had their original immediately from heaven also) 'tis certain from the Jewish writings, though the sacred Scripture have no occasion to mention it, that the succession of these( under the name of the {αβγδ} or Sanhedrin, or council) was continued through all ages by their creating others in the place of those that dyed, by this ceremony of the {αβγδ} imposition of hands. To this purpose are the clear words of Maimonides tr. Sanhedr. c. 4. {αβγδ} &c. Moses our Master created the seventy Elders by imposition of hands, and the divine Majesty restend on them, and those Elders imposed hands on others, and others on others. And they were found created, until the house of judgement of Joshua, and unto the house of judgement of Moses, i.e. from time to time, ascending to the Sanhedrin in Joshua's and Moses's time.  
From these three uses of this ceremony, First, in praying for another; Secondly, 
In the New.  in paternal benediction; Thirdly, in the creating of successors in power, either in whole, or in part; Three sorts of things there are in the New Testament, to which this ceremony of laying on of hands is accommodated. That of Prayer simply taken, was of two sorts, either for the curing of diseases, or pardoning of sins, and each of these was accompanied with this ceremony. Diseases, the corporal bonds, Luk. 13.16. were cured by imposition of hands, Act. 9.17. and 28.8.( and so it was foretold, Mar. 16.18. they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover) and so sins, the bonds, and diseases of the soul, they were done away by that ceremony also, and to this it is( the absolution of penitents) that that exhortation of Paul to Timothy belongs, that he should not suddenly( or without due examination, and proof of their penitence) lay hands on any, 1 Tim. 5.22. 
1 Tim. 5. 2●.  lest by so doing he should be partaker of those sins, for the mortifying of which, the Censures of the Church were designed. And in that sense, I suppose, it is to be taken, Heb. 6.2. 
Heb. 6.2.  For as the {αβγδ}, baptisms used among the Jews and Christians, both by John and Christ, for the admitting of Proselytes, may fitly refer to the faith toward God, the qualification of all, that would thus be admitted, Heb. 11.6. so the {αβγδ}, laying on of hands, may refer to the repentance from dead works, and so peculiarly denote absolution of the penitents.  
From the second, that of paternal benediction, was borrowed, first, that of blessing Infants, with that ceremony of imposition of hands, as that differed from Baptism, Mar. 10.16. 
Mar. 10.16.  and secondly, that of confirming those of fuller age, that had been formerly baptized.  
Lastly, to creating successors in any power, or communicating any part of power to others, as to assistants, is answerable that imposition of hands in Ordination, so often mentioned in the New Testament, sometimes in a lower degree, in the ordaining of Deacons, Act. 6.6. 
Act, 6.6.  constituted or ordained, {αβγδ}, for that particular employment, and elsewhere in the highest degree, setting Governors over particular Churches, as generally when by that laying on of hands, it is said they received the holy Ghost, whereas the holy Ghost contains all the {αβγδ} required to the Pastoral function, and also signifies power from on high, Luk. 24.49. 
Luk. 2● 49.  the authority and function itself; so it being given by imposition of hands; makes the parallel exact between this of Christian Ordination, and that observed in creating successors in the Jewish Sanhedrin.  
For as in the first creation of Moses, and after of the Seventy, those functions were instated on him, and them, by Gods speaking( and appearing by Angels) to him, and by his taking the spirit that was on Moses, and its resting upon them, Num. 11.25. and agreeably all that by imposition of hands were after created to succeed them, were said to have the Majestatick Presence, the {αβγδ} rest upon them, and the Spirit, Deut. 34.9.( the {αβγδ} Divine Presence, and {αβγδ} holy Spirit, being all one in the Jewish writings) and this( as it is there said, because, &c.) by means of imposition of hands, so in the New Testament the holy Ghost first descended visibly upon the Apostles, and thereby they were instated in that power, which Christ designed and promised them, and then they by imposition of hands, as they made Deacons for lower services, to assist them, so they constituted others their successors, and the holy Ghost, i.e. not onely the {αβγδ}, gifts, and graces, to fit them, but especially the function itself, descended on them.  
Of this ceremony thus used, these several mentions there are: First, Act. 8.17. 
Act. 8.17.  where, after Philip the Deacon had preached and baptized in Samaria, Peter and John the Apostles came from Jerusalem to perfect the work, and laid hands on them( not on all that were baptized, but some special persons whom they thought meet) and they received the holy Ghost. So Act. 13.3. 
Act. 13.3.  by praying and laying on of hands, Paul and Barnabas were separated to the Apostleship. So Timothy's being made a Bishop is expressed, 1 Tim. 4.15. 
1 Tim. 4.15.  by the {αβγδ} gift, or function, that was given him {αβγδ} by prophesy,( direction from the Spirit of God) {αβγδ}, by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery, referring either to some number of Apostles, S. Paul,( 2 Tim. 1.6. the gift which is in thee by the laying on of my hands) and Barnabas, and such others that were Apostles, or Apostolical men( in the sense that the Apostles are called by 
Ep. ad Philadelph.  Ignatius, {αβγδ}, the Presbytery of the Church) or else by some Assembly of Bishops joining with S. Paul in this Ordination.  
And thus much may suffice for the first thing proposed, 
The power conferred in Ordination.  the examining the words, by which it is expressed, which will have prepared the way to the second, that of the Office or Power conferred in Ordination.  
To which purpose it must first be laid for a foundation, that Christ Jesus, 
Christs Mission and Power.  the eternal Son of God, was sent down in our human flesh to exercise in his own person( and so to found) an office of Government upon the earth. Thus was it prophesied of him, Isa. 9.6. 
Isa. 9.6.  that the Government should be upon his shoulder; and Isa. 61.1. 
Isa. 61.1.  that the Lord God had anointed( which the Chaldee Paraphrase generally renders by {αβγδ} exalting) him, and( as a preparative to that) that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, to preach the Gospel, &c. and proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Which prophesy is acknowledged to be fulfilled in Christ, Luk. 4.18, 21. 
Luk. 4.18, 21.  that Spirit of God, upon his being baptized by John, immediately descending upon him, Mat. 3.16. 
Mat. 3.16.   
What this office was, is by himself set down, first Negatively, 
His Office set down Negatively.  them Affirmatively. Negatively, that he was not constituted a Judge of Civil Interests, Luk. 12.14. and Joh. 18.36. 
Joh. 18.36.  that it was not a kingdom of this world, which he pretended to. And so all pretention of right from him to interpose in, or disturb Civil Governments, or Judicatures, 
No Civil Power.  or to make any change in the Principalities of the world, is utterly disclaimed in the foundation. And they that from Christ incarnate think to deduce, or pled any such Charter, are upon the Christian Principles to be looked on, as Impostors, and designers against the peace of the world, and the quiet, and settlement of the several kingdoms in it, which Christian Religion was designed to secure, not onely by prescribing continual Prayers for all that are in authority, but also by enacting and enforcing the strictest Laws for obedience to the Supreme Powers( to be performed by all, without exemption of any, even of Christ himself, when he was here on earth, or the Apostles and Governors of the Church afterward) to defend, and perpetuate it.  
In recompense to which it is foretold in Scripture, that Kings and Queens should be the nursing fathers and mothers of the Church, which is a very distant Title from that of Subjects, or Pupils, or Children of it. And when it is foretold of Christ, that he should have on his vesture, and on his thigh a name written King of kings, and Lord of lords, Rev. 12.16. 
Rev. 19.16.  that sure is but a Prophetical, expression, to signify that the Kings of the earth should generally receive the faith, not that any Secular Dominion should be set up over them by Christ, who had so professedly disclaimed it. Thus far is Christian Religion from laying any grounds of undermining, or shaking the Political order, or cutting asunder any of those sinews, whereby it was formerly compacted.  
And, as Negatively, so also Affirmatively is his office set down, First, in general, 
Affirmatively. The parts of spiritual power.  that he came to call sinners to repentance, to save that which was lost, to bring the spirits, and souls of men into a regular compliance with the Laws of God, to rule, and reign in mens hearts by faith; and then in particular, first, to preach, and reveal the Will of God: Secondly, to gather Proselytes, and admit them by baptism into his Church, the society of those which profess the faith of Christ: Thirdly, to confirm, and farther build up, and instruct those that are thus admitted: Fourthly, to remove those from the privileges of that society, who walk unworthy of them, by that means most probably to reduce them, as withdrawing of mercies is the most profitable discipline for those that surfet of them: Fifthly, to receive these, upon testification of their repentance, into the embraces of his arms, the Communion of the Church again, And lastly, to communicate this power to others in what measure he thought expedient.  
In all these respects he is said to be sent into the world, Joh. 17.18. 
joh. 17.18.  sent by his Father, Joh. 20.21. 
joh. 20.21. ( as Governors are said to be sent, {αβγδ}, 1 Pet. 2.14. 
1 Pet. 2.14.  sent by the Supreme Ruler with Commission to that purpose) to have power on earth to forgive sins, Mat. 9.6. 
Mat. 9.6.  to have all power delivered to him in heaven and in earth, Mat. 28.18. 
Mat. 28.18.  and particularly to be the teacher, and Lord of his Church, or disciples, Joh. 13.13. 
joh. 13.13.  Our High-Priest and Apostle, Heb. 3.1. 
Heb. 3.1.  the great shepherd of the sheep, Heb. 13.20. 
Heb. 13.20.  and so the onely Pastor, and Bishop of our souls, 1 Pet. 2.25. 
1 Pet. 2.25.   
What Christ had thus received from his Father by his Mission, 
Christs personal exercise of his office on earth.  or Commission, he exercised in his own person, as long as he remained on the earth, preached the Gospel, instituted Rites, called, and entertained disciples, by them received, and baptized Proselytes, or believers, commanded them, and used their ministry, their voluntary, not constrained obedience, designed some to certain offices, and onely for a time,( the Seventy, as harbingers in one journey of his) to assist, or be useful to him, others he invested with a weightier, and more lasting authority, left them his successors on earth, sent them, as he was sent by his Father, gave them the same Commission, which he ha●… received, to be executed in the same manner by them and each of them, after his departure, as Joshua succeeded Moses in his office and power. All which is, in every branch of it, clear from the express words of Scripture.  
They that had this Commission from him, were in his life time called Apostles, that title denoting Proxies, 
The Apostles Christs successors.  or Procurators, which act in the name, and stead of him, whose Proxies they are, according to the known rule of the Jews, Apostolus cujusque est ut quisque, every ones Apostle is as himself, to which our Saviour seems to refer, Mat. 10.40. 
Mat. 10.40.  He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me, making himself his Fathers Apostle, or Proxy, and the twelve, his. But at his departing from the world, then he solemnly instated his power on them, sealed their Commission to them, Joh. 17.18. and 20.21. 
joh. 17.18.20.21.  as it had been sealed to him by his Father.  
This also is very distinctly and particularly set down in holy Writ, through the several branches of this power. As the Father gave judgement unto the Son, Joh. 5.22. 
joh. 5.22.  so the Son gave judgement to the Apostles, Mat. 19.28. 
Mat. 19.28.  Luk. 22.30. 
Lu. 22.30.  1 Cor. 6.3. 
1 Cor. 6.3.  2 Cor. 10.6. 
2 Cor. 10.6.  As the Father gave the Son power on earth to remit sins, Mat. 10.6. 
Mat. 10.6.  so the Son gave the Apostles power to remit sins on earth also, Joh. 20.23. 
joh. 20.23.  As the Father gave the Son the keys of the house of David, Isa. 22.22. 
Is. 22.22.  Rev. 3.7. 
Rev. 3.7.  so the Son gave the keys to the Apostles, Mat. 16.19. 
Mat. 16.19.  As the Father gave the Son to sit on his Throne, so the Son gave the Apostles also to sit on twelve Thrones, &c. Mat. 19.28. 
Mat. 19.28  Luk. 22.30. 
Lu. 22.30.  As the Father gave the Son to be the foundation or corner ston of his Church, Mat. 21.42. 
Mat. 21.42.  so the Son gave the Apostles to be foundations upon the foundation, Eph. 2.20. 
Eph 2.20.  and lastly, as the Father sent the Son, Joh. 5.24. and 17.18. 
joh. 5.24.17.18.  so the Son sent the Apostles, Joh. 20.21. 
joh. 20.21.  And hence it is that the Angel sent from heaven to S. John, who was one of this number, calls himself the fellow-fervant of him, and of those that have the testimony of Jesus, Rev. 19.10. 
Rev. 19.10.  i. e. of the Apostles, adding this reason of it, because {αβγδ}, the testification of the Resurrection of Christ( and the Christian faith) the Apostolical office, Act. 1.22. 
Acts 1.22.  was the Spirit of prophesy, i.e. a succeeding of Christ in his great prophetic office, the most honourable employment of that kind, to which any mortal man could be designed by God, and so fit to be compared with the Angels employment at that time, in bringing the news, that the Emperors would receive the faith of Christ, v. 6.  
This power( wherein the Apostles, not all of them together, but Peter, Mat. 16.19. and each other of them single, in his {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, Province, or proper place, Act. 1.25. 
Acts 1.25. ( as hath 
Dissert. III. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  elsewhere been largely shown) succeeded Christ) being thus, not in part, but entirely conferred on each of them, a several Throne for every one, Mat. 19.28. 
Mat. 19.28.  and being of so visible use, not onely for the first planting, but propagating, and conservation of the Church, it cannot be imagined, that it should be temporary, 
Their office not temporary.  and determine in the persons of those twelve. The necessity of order, of rules, both for the supply of those things, which should be found wanting for the well-being, and preservation of each Church, Tit. 1.5. and also for the securing of the flock from the {αβγδ}, Act. 20.29. the wolves, the heretics, which it was foreseen would so early infest them, and the plantation, and propagation of the Christian faith, without any assistance of the Rulers among the Jews, and the Emperors and Princes among other parts of the heathen world, nay, when it was so opposed and persecuted by them, is a competent collection of Reasons to assure us, That that power which Christ gave the Apostles, which were but short-lived, and should, many of them, be put to death by those Persecutors, was designed to endure longer then their time. But Reason is not a commodious medium to infer, or conclude a matter of fact, and therefore that must of necessity be done either 1. by Affirmations, and Promises of Christ touching this matter, or if those be not so clear, as to convince gainsayers, then 2. by supplying that want of light from the Histories and relations of those times, by which it will as clearly appear, as any thing in story can, that the office of power in the Church bestowed by Christ on the Apostles, was not to determine in their persons, but to continue in their successors to future ages.  
For the former of these we may discern somewhat perhaps from that passage in Christs Prayer to his Father, 
The proofs of that, 1. Christs affirmation, Joh. 17.18, 20.  Joh. 17. where having spoken of his Apostles, whom he had sent, as his Father sent him into the world, v. 18. i. e. given them( in designation) Commissions for the governing of his Church; and then to his Prayer for them, v. 17.( that God would sanctify them {αβγδ} in, or for his truth, i.e. consecrate them for the preaching of the Gospel, as S. Chrysostome expounds it) adding farther, v. 19. that for their sakes he sanctifies himself, i.e. offers up himself a Sacrifice, for the consecrating of them, that they also may be sanctified for the truth, i.e. consecrated, and set apart for this function, and after his example venture their lives in their preaching of Gods will, as he hath done: at length he concludes, {αβγδ}, But I pray not for these alone, v. 20. which being in all reason to be interpnted of the same matter, concerning which he had prayed for the Apostles before, it follows that this Prayer of his, for the consecrating of officers in his Church, is not confined to his Apostles alone, which then attended him, {αβγδ}, &c. but the same Prayer he offers up for those also, that shall believe through their word, i.e. for others, that by these Apostles preaching should be brought to the Faith, and, as the event demonstrates, ordained by them to be Bishops and Deacons in several Churches. This, if we have not mistaken the meaning of it, is an express affirmation of Christs in this matter.  
And we shall have less reason to suspect, that we have mistaken, 
2. His Promise.  if we consider Christs Promise to his Apostles at his parting from them, Mat. 28.20. 
Mat. 28.20.  And behold I am with you all the dayes, {αβγδ}, until the end of the world. 'tis certain that this presence of Christ with them, refers to his authority derived, and assistance made over to them, in order to the discharge of their office of gathering disciples, baptizing and teaching, v. 19. and as certain, that the Apostles should not personally live to execute that office, till the period there name, the end of the world, and then it is not imaginable how Christs presence should be continued with them till the end of the world, unless they be considered in complexo, in conjunction with their posterity, or successors in that office( as the Promises made to Abraham, are performed to his posterity, though not to his person) to whom therefore this promised assistance belongs {αβγδ}, all the dayes, i.e. for the whole term of this new age. And this is the more demonstrative, because this was said by Christ after his Resurrection, immediately before his ascending to heaven, which being the beginning of the {αβγδ}, the last age of the world, the kingdom of Christ, when all power was given to him, v. 18. it necessary follows, that what was to be continued till the {αβγδ} consummation, or conclusion of that age, should last till the end of the world, in the largest sense, that those words can signify.  
This, I suppose, is also meant by the Promise of Christ, Rev. 2. 
And the like, Rev. 2.26.  to those of the Church of Thyatira, which should overcome and keep, v. 26. i. e. adhere constantly to the faith, in spite of all temptations, that he will give them power over the nations, as he received of his Father, v. 27. where, in the very same manner, that Joh. 20.21. power is instated on the Apostles,[ as my Father sendeth me, so sand I you]( sending, and giving power, being sent, and receiving power, being phrases of the same importance) the like power is by Christ promised to be instated on these faithful Confessors afterward, and that belonging to the planting and propagating the faith among the Gentiles, bringing them in to repentance( which is the breaking them to shivers there) and ruling them with a rod of iron, i.e. the sceptre of Christs Spiritual kingdom, his Gospel, and Power, and Pastoral Authority committed to them. If this, being( by the prophetic style, wherein it is veiled) somewhat obscure, bring not that evidence with it, which is expected, I desire it may be past over, as a conjecture which pretends onely to be considerable, by the accordance and consent with other greater evidences, which are now to follow.  
To proceed then to the next topic of probation( the Histories of those Times, 
3. The histories of those times  which are most competent to clear the fact) A first evidence of this sort, is the assumption of mathias into the place of Judas the traditor and desertor, Act. 1. 
Act 1.20, 22, 25.  who lost his office, and soon after, his life. Wherein we see S. Peter, upon the Prophetical Prediction of Judas's fate, 
The assumption of mathias to the Apostolacy.  and the last branch of that [ his bishopric let another take] v. 20. concludes with a[ {αβγδ}] a necessity, that one of those that had continued with them from the beginning, and so was qualified for it, should[ {αβγδ}] v. 22. become with them a witness of the Resurrection, and by the form of their prayer for Gods direction, and revelation of his Will, which he had pitched on, it is evident, that taking his bishopric, v. 20. is all one with taking the lot, or portion of that ministry and Apostleship, v. 25. and consequently, that as {αβγδ} bishopric, denoted an office, so that was all one with {αβγδ} the office of Apostles, and that still a {αβγδ}, a ministration, a ministerial office for the benefit and good of others. And there is one passage more observable in the end of that 25. v. that he that thus succeeded Judas( and so by analogy of reason, every other of the twelve) had his {αβγδ}, 
{αβγδ}.  peculiar place or Province, to which he was designed, and sent to preach the Gospel, not the whole college of Apostles together to all and every place, but every one of them single endowed with that power, that he might alone, without assessors, discharge his office, and so was obliged {αβγδ}, to go to his own place, which words being divided by a comma, from[ {αβγδ}, from which Judas by transgression fell] which therefore are to be red as in a parenthesis) are yet by some conceived to belong to Judas's fate after death, his going to that place of punishment, appointed for him. But sure that is a mistake.  
Soon after this, 'tis apparent Act. 6. that the Apostles, to make their burden more supportable, did by imposition of hands create seven Deacons 
The seven Deacons.  in jerusalem, which although it be not an example of their constituting successors to their whole office, and therefore is not here mentioned in the same rank as the former was, yet it is an evidence, that they were able to communicate to others any part of that power committed to them by Christ. And that is a sufficient proof, that the Apostles power was not temporary, and determined to their persons. And then secondly, why they might not, in whole, as well as in part, communicate it to others, who might succeed to it( after their departure from any place, or finally out of the world) as well as assist them, being present, by undergoing, in their stead, some part of it, there is no imaginable reason to be rendered; but, on the contrary, the example of Moses, who first assumed the Seventy to assist him( and at that time God gave them of his Spirit, and so part of his power) and after, constituted Ioshua to succeed him, will be directly applicable to this matter.  
Thirdly, it is apparent, that after, and beside the instating of this office on the twelve, it was the will and appointment of God, that Saul and Barnabas 
Saul and Barnabas.  should be assumed to it, Act. 13.2. 
Act. 13.2.  and that immediately after james the apostles death, c. 12.2. in the same manner as Ephraim and Manasses supplied the place of joseph, when he dyed. By which testimony from heaven appears likewise, that that office was not determined to the persons of the twelve Apostles, or those on whom the holy Ghost descended, Act. 2. but was to be communicated to others also.  
Fourthly, by comparing some passages of Scripture with the plain assertions of ancient Writers, 
James the Just B●shop of Jerusalem.  and Fathers of the Church, it may be concluded, that james the just, that had the title of Brother of the Lord, was constituted Bishop of jerusalem( being none of those twelve Apostles) by Christ himself, say 
Theophyl. in 1 Cor. 15.7.  some, at his appearing to him after the Resurrection, but( as 'tis more generally resolved on) by the Apostles, which having received their power from Christ, Eusebius's phrase is, that he had it {αβγδ}, from our Saviour himself and his Apostles, from him mediately, and from them immediately. This is manifest by Ignatius, who was his contemporary, in his Epistle to the Trallenses, mentioning Steven the Deacon, {αβγδ}, waiting on james peculiarly. And so in Ep. ad Hieron. {αβγδ}, Thou art employed as a Deacon, as Stephen was to james. And so saith 
{αβγδ}. Euseb. l. 2. c. {αβγδ}.  Hegesippus, and 
{αβγδ}. l. {αβγδ}.  Clemens Alexandrinus, 
In Synops.  Athanasius, 
Haer 78.  Epiphanius, 
de Resur. Or. 2.  Gregory Nyssene, 
In cattle.& in Gal. 1.  S. jerome, and divers others, all agreeing in this, that Peter, and james, and John, choose and constituted James the Bishop of jerusalem, and that in the XIX year of Tiberius, i.e. the next year after the death of Christ, saith Eusebius in his Chronicle, p. 43.  
Hence it is that this james, though none of the twelve, is called an Apostle, 
Called an Apostle  Gal. 1.19. 
Gal. 1.19.  and perhaps Act. 15.6. and 22. 
Act. 15 6 22  and in the inscription of his Epistle,( though in the beginning of it he call himself the servant of the Lord) he is entitled the Apostle james; and accordingly 
come. in Isa.  S. jerome calls him the thirteenth Apostle, which farther yields him a priority before Paul and Barnabas,( as being after him admitted to that dignity) to whom he gives the right hand of fellowship, Gal. 2.9. and being at jerusalem, his Episcopal See, is there name before Peter and John, two principal Apostles, who, with james the other son of Zebedee, would not, saith 
{αβγδ}. l. {αβγδ}.  Clemens, {αβγδ}, contend for the glory or dignity, {αβγδ}, choose james the just Bishop of jerusalem. Whatsoever there is of seeming difficulty in this matter, hath been cleared in 
Diss●rt. IV. c. 3.  other Papers. And by this again appears, that that office of pre-eminence and authority in the Church, was not given to the persons of the twelve, so as to be determined in them, but so as to be from them communicated to others also.  
Fifthly, of S. Paul 'tis not onely said by himself expressly, that he had laid hands on Timothy, 
Timothy.  and that thereby the gift of God, fitting him for the Episcopal function, was given him, 2 Tim. 1.6. 
2 Tim. 1.6:  and 1 Tim. 4.14. 
1 Tim. 4.14.  but farther, that he was by him left at Ephesus to exercise this authority, {αβγδ}, to command some,( which includes power) to teach no other doctrine, i.e. to suppress heretics, 1 Tim. 1.3. and the same is as clear of Titus, 
Titus.  who is by him left in Crete, with power of regulating things that were not yet ordered in that iceland, and to ordain Elders in every Church, Tit. 1.5. 
Tit. 1.5.  which being two b●anches of Episcopal Power, it is by all the ancients generally affirmed, that he was instituted the 
{αβγδ}. Chrysost. Hom. 1. in Tit. Theophyl. in Arg Epist.  Metropolitan, or chief Bishop of that iceland, as 
{αβγδ}. Anon. in Phot. Num. 254.  Timothy of Ephesus, the chief Metropolis of Asia, and accordingly these two are styled Apostles also( as receiving the same power, or Commission, that Christ had given to the twelve, and to S. Paul) So that 
Ibid.  Anonymus in Photius mentions the martyrdom of Timothy the Apostle, and Theodoret, {αβγδ}, Timothy the Apostle of the Asiaticks, and {αβγδ}, Titus the Apostle of the Cretians. And the same is observable of Mark, Luke, Thaddeus, Epaphroditus, Clemens, and Ignatius, and others, as is 
Dissert. IV. c. 3.  elsewhere shown.  
Sixthly, of S. Paul it is farther plain, that in Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioch, and in those parts, 
Elders ordained by Paul and Barn bas. Act. 14.2.  he and Barnabas {αβγδ}, ordained them Elders Church by Church, Act. 14.2. i. e. a Bishop, or governor in every Church; which is again the communicating that power to others, which they held by Commission from Christ.  
Of these acts of S. Paul, 2 Tim. 1.6. Tit. 1.5. and Act. 14.23. it will not be amiss to consider a while what is observed by Mr. Selden, 
de Syned●. l. 1. c 14.  and recommended as most worthy to be observed by all that are lovers of truth, viz. 
Mr. Seld ns notion of it.  That this of S. Pauls creating of Presbyters, was according to the Jewish custom of creating of Elders; that Paul, forsooth, was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, as his disciple, Act. 22.3. and there instructed more exactly in the jewish Law; that Gamaliel was the Nephew of Hillel, and Prince of the Sanhedrin at that time; that he, as an Elder among the jews, might create his Scholars to the same dignity, as he pleased, and therefore that it is not to be doubted, but that Gamaliel created Paul to the dignity of a jewish Elder, while he was his disciple, i.e. before he was a Christian: and that a while after Paul becoming Christian and an Apostle, thought it lawful in Asia, Crete, and elsewhere, as well as within judaea, to create Elders, for the preaching of the Gospel, accounting himself and the other Apostles free from that new Law of having the licence of the Prince of the Sanhedrin, and so that that custom prevailed in creating the Christian Elders, that every one that was duly created himself, might also duly create his own disciples; and to conclude, Hinc de Paulo& Barnabâ dicitur, {αβγδ}, Hence, saith he, it is said of Paul and Barnabas, Having ordained them Elders through the Churches. And Hinc Paulus ad Titum, &c. Hence Paul to Titus, that was before created to the dignity of Eldership, I left thee at Crete, &c. that thou mayst constitute Elders through the Cities.  
Having set down this observation, or interpretation of this Gentleman, 
An examination of it.  and so his account of S. Pauls power to ordain Elders in the Church, I shall in stead of the many unproved affirmations contained in it, take notice onely of these few inconveniences which necessary follow on it: First, that according to these premises, S. Pauls power of ordaining Elders in the Church of Christ, was no other power, but that which Saul the Persecutor of Christians had, when he was that Persecutor: Secondly, that he received it from Gamaliel the jew, and not from Christ, the Head and Founder of the Christian Church: Thirdly, that he that would not own to have received any part of his Apostolical Power from S. Peter or any other man in the world, Gal. 1.1. 
Gal. 1.1.  onely that he might owe it all to the Commission received from heaven, should now be constrained to aclowledge the receipt of it from his old Master in the jewish Religion: Fourthly, that Barnabas which appears equally with Paul in ordaining of Elders, Act. 14. should not in this interpretation be taken notice of at all, nor consideration be had, whether what is said of Paul were in any degree appliable to him.  
These, I think, are inconveniences enough, to which this doctrine is liable upon the Christian score; and yet there are many other discernible upon the bare jewish account. For first, for the Prince of the Sanhedrin at jerusalem to create, and constitute an Elder, must, I suppose, signify to take him into the Sanhedrin at jerusalem. And surely no man imagines that Paul before his Conversion was thus created, it being said of him expressly, Act. 7.58. 
Act. 7.58.  at S. Stephens martyrdom, that he was {αβγδ}, a young man, at whose feet the witnesses laid their raiment, when they went to ston him: where the word {αβγδ}, if it be onely a note of his age, or if it be all one with {αβγδ} in other places, must signify either a young man, or a person of mean quality, or perhaps an inferior officer, such as Act. 5.6. 
Act. 5.6.  carried out the dead to burial, and in any of these notions will be far enough distant from one of the Elders, or members of the Sanhedrin. And that farther appears by what was said of him, just before his Conversion, Act. 9.2. 
Act. 9.2.  that he came to the High-Priest, and desired letters from him to the Synagogues at Damascus, that if he found any Christians there, he might bring them bound to jerusalem. This makes it probable, that he was some inferior officer, or sergeant, but evident that he was neither Elder in the Sanhedrin, nor member of any Consistory in another City, and so sure it is more then to be doubted, whether Gamaliel had created him to this dignity, It is most apparent that he had not. All that is imaginable in this matter is, that Gamaliel being a Doctor of the Law, might create this his disciple to that dignity of Doctor of the Law. And if that had been so, certainly he that held it useful to put into his apology that he had been brought up at Gamaliels feet, would have thought fit, for the enhancing those pretensions, to have added, that he was once made a Doctor by the Prince of the Sanhedrin. But besides that, there is as little appearance, or( for the former reasons) probability of truth in that, as in the former, It is evident that this, if it were granted, were impertinent, and unappliable to this matter: For that would not denominate him a {αβγδ} or Elder, but rather a {αβγδ}, which we render Scribe, such were they that had been taught {αβγδ}, the Books and Writings of the Law, and themselves after become teachers in their {αβγδ} houses of Information, or Instruction, and sometimes chosen into the Sanhedrin; for that consisted of three sorts of men of several denominations, Chief Priests, Elders and Scribes( see Mat. 26.3.) the Doctors of the Law, were the {αβγδ}, Scribes, not {αβγδ} Elders, and if all of them together in council be sometimes styled {αβγδ}, or Eldership, that is but a denomination of the whole from one special part of that council, and no way concludes( against express testimonies of Scripture) and jewish Writers) that the Sanhedrin was all made up of Elders at that time. Nay, it is said of Gamaliel expressly, that he was {αβγδ}, a Doctor of the Law, and one of the Sanhedrin, Act. 5.34. who as a Doctor might have disciples to instruct in the Law, sitting at his feet, but cannot from thence be concluded to be the Prince of the Sanhedrin at that time( as is by Mr. S. pretended) but on the contrary, by being called {αβγδ}, a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrin, it may well be conjectured that he was not, but an ordinary member of it, though of great reputation at that time. And so still though he might make his disciple a Doctor of the Law( of which there were other uses, besides being of the Sanhedrin) yet an Elder he could not, nor consequently could Saul bestow that dignity upon any other jew, much less upon them abroad in the dispersions, least of all upon any gentle Christians( as 'tis more then probable, ever since his departing to the Gentiles, c. 13.46. some of those Elders c. 14.23. were, and of those in Crete, Tit. 1. there can be no place of doubting) upon that score of having been a Scholar of Gamaliels. Many other things there are in this notion, utterly unreconcilable with the jewish customs, if it were here seasonable to discover them.  
That the learned Grotius was favourable to this notion, is pretended by Mr. S. setting down to this purpose these words of his, on Act. 11.30. ( Totum regimen Ecclesiarum Christi conformatum fuit ad Synagogarum exemplar, The whole Government of the Churches of Christ, was conformed to the pattern of the Synagogues) and referring the Reader to his Notes on Act. 13.1.20.7.18.8. But this is no way to be deduced from that learned mans words; for 'tis certainly one thing to affirm the Government of the Church to be formed after the jewish pattern,( which it is acknowledged that it was, Christ accommodating, and lightly changing the jewish customs into Christian Institutions) another to deduce the power of making Elders in the Church( which certainly had the original from Christ, who came down from heaven to plant, or gather a Church of Gentiles, as well as jews) from the authority of the jewish Sanhedrin, which as it was used for the putting of Christ, and some of his disciples, even of Paul himself, to death, so it was never used to propagate Christianity, nor could be imagined to communicate a power to men of, and in other nations, particularly in Crete, which were not so much as Proselytes of the jews, had nothing to do with them.  
The other affirmations of Grotius referred to, will yield as little aid, being all to the same purpose, that the customs in the jewish Synagogue were imitated, and accommodated by Christ to the Christian uses, not that Paul, an Apostle; or Commissioner of Iesus Christ, endued from heaven with that power, which he communicated( as he saw fit, and as the Spirit directed him) to others, neither had, nor communicated any power, but what he had from Gamaliel his jewish Master; That Paul was endued with this power from heaven, when he was called to his Apostleship, that he and Barnabas together were actually separated to that work by the imposition of the hands not of Gamaliel, the unconverted jew, but of the Christian Prophets and Doctors, or Bishops, whose names are recorded Act. 13.1, 2, 3. was sure the acknowledged opinion of that excellent man, H. Grotius, and never any other original assigned by him, or any Christian to this power of making Elders, I shall not need to say any more of it.  
Seventhly then, It farther appears, that as Timothy and Titus were thus ordained by S. Paul, 
Timothy and Titus had power to ordain others.  so they had thereby also power to others, through all Churches in those Regions where they were placed, and accordingly did actually ordain them. And so the power, which was given the Apostles, was sure no temporary power, but as from them derived to others, so from those others farther communicated, and all this by express Testimonies of Scripture. For that S. Paul should leave Titus in Crete on purpose to ordain Elders there, and prescribe Timothy, as well as him, what sort of men, and how qualified, should be constituted Bishops( and Deacons) in the Churches, and they should make no use of that power, is not imaginable, nor could be controverted, though there were no other book in the world, but the New Testament, whereas the testimony of the following Church-writers is clear, that in Crete the one,( and in Asia the other) had the ordaining first, and then the judging of so many Bishops( by name an hundred) in that iceland, and that( as there, so every where else) the Bishops in their several Churches were the successors of the Apostles, and therefore many of them called Apostles also.  
This we have seen already in james the Bishop of jerusalem, 
Bishops successors of the Apostles, and called Apostles. Thaddaeus.  called so in the Scriptures themselves. And the like we find of divers others; Of Thaddeus( not he that was one of the twelve, Iudas, or Lebbeus, but) he that was, ten years after Christs Resurrection, sent by S. Thomas to the King of Edessa, we have, out of the Records of that Nation[ {αβγδ}, the Apostle of Iesus] the Apostle Thaddeus, and simply the Apostle. See Eusebius Hist. l. 1. c. {αβγδ}.  
So Luke, 
Luke.  that is thought to be the person that was ordained S. Pauls fellow-traveller, 2 Cor. 8.19. and if he were not( as there are some reasons to believe it was Silas) must in all reason be placed there among the {αβγδ}, Apostles of the Church, v. 23. is by Epiphanius distinctly styled an Apostle, Haer. 51. and in {αβγδ}.  
So Mark, 
Mark.  he that wrote the Gospel, and is called by S. Peter his son, as converted by him, and of whom Papias truly affirms, {αβγδ}, he neither heard nor followed Christ, yet being, eleven years after Christs assumption, sent into egypt to preach the Gospel, and there affirmed by S. jerome, out of the Records of those first times, to have ordained Anianus Patriarch of Alexandria, and, by the writer of his life in Photius, to have done the like in Pentapolis, is by Eusebius l. 2. c. {αβγδ}. and by Epiphanius Haer. 51. called {αβγδ}, Apostle.  
So Timothy, 
Timothy.  that by prophesy( i.e. revelation of the Spirit, say the 
Oecumen. in 1 Tim. 3.  Scholiasts) was ordained Bishop of Ephesus, is by the Anonymus in Photius, Num. 254. called {αβγδ}, Timothy the Apostle, and by 
In 1 Tim. 3.1.  Theodoret, {αβγδ}, the Apostle of the Asiaticks, and so by Theophanes, he, with others, is {αβγδ}, an holy Apostle.  
And so of Titus, {αβγδ}, Titus 
Titus.  the Apostle of the Cretians, in Theodoret.  
So Epaphroditus 
Epaphroditus.  the Bishop of Philippi, is acknowledged by Theodoret, to be therefore called their Apostle, Phil. 2.25. {αβγδ}, &c. S. Paul manifestly called Epaphroditus their Apostle, having, saith he, the appellation of their Bishop.  
So Clemens 
Clemens.  mentioned Phil. 4.3. as a fellow-labourer of S. Pauls, and first a Deacon to S. Peter,( saith Ignatius ad Trallenses) afterward Bishop of Rome, is called by Clemens Alexandrinus, storm. 4. {αβγδ}, the Apostle Clemens, and by 
In Isa. 52.  S. jerome, Vir Apostolicus, an Apostolical person, and so by 
de adulterat. lib. Origenis.  Ruffinus adding, Imò pene Apostolus, yea and almost an Apostle.  
So Ignatius, 
Ignatius.  that is said by S. 
{αβγδ}.  Chrysostome to have conversed familiarly with the Apostles, and by them made Bishop of Antioch, the hands, saith he, of the blessed Apostles touching his sacred head, is by him called both Apostle and Bishop.  
And accordingly 'tis the general affirmation of Theodoret, {αβγδ}, those that were( in his time, saith he) called Bishops, they called Apostles, {αβγδ}, &c. but in process of time they left the name of Apostles to those that were truly so, sent immediately by Christ, and imposed the name of Bishops on those others, that had been anciently called Apostles.  
So Rabanus Maurus on 1 Tim. 4.14. Episcopi provincias integras regebant Apostolorum nomine nuncupati, the Bishops ruled whole Provinces, being called Apostles.  
So when Irenaeus l. 1. c. 9. and from him Epiphanius l. 1. Haer. 14. and 34. saith of the heretic Marcus's followers, that they were so puffed up, that they contemned the Apostles themselves in respect of them, it must sure be understood of the Bishops of those times, who thereby appear to be styled Apostles.  
Eighthly, It is manifest by the Epistle of Christ to the seven Churches of the Proconsular Asia, 
The seven Churches of Asia.  delivered by vision to S. John, that there were, at the date of that Epistle, Rulers or Governors of each of those Churches, to whom, under the title of Angels, the care of those Churches was committed. That these were any of the twelve Apostles, or others constituted from heaven immediately, neither is, nor can be pretended by any; It remains therefore that it must be a derived, communicated power, whether mediately or immediately from one, or more of the Apostles, that first preached the Gospel there, which was thus vested in those Angels, in respect of which not onely that honourable title of Angels is bestowed upon each of them by Christ himself, the same that on the 
{αβγδ}, They call him the chief Priest, and think him to be an Angel or Messenger of Gods, to bring his commands to them. Diodor. Sicul. ap. Phot. de judaeis.  high Priest among the Jews, Mal. 2.7. but they are also resembled to so many Stars held by Christ in his right hand, Rev. 1.16. and 2.1. which is an infallible evidence, that this dignity, and power of theirs was approved and confirmed by Christ.  
And to so clear a testimony of Scripture, 
Testimonies out of Antiquity.  we may farther add the words of the council of Chalcedon, Act. 2. concerning the Church of Ephesus, that from Timothy to that time, 
council of Chalcedon.  there had been twenty seven Bishops there, to which it is consequent, that either Timothy, or some follower of his, was this very Angel that Christ wrote to, c. 2.1. And so Polycrates, 
Polycrates.  that was not long after S. Johns time, affirms himself to be the eighth Bishop of that City, Epist. ad Victor. apud Euseb. Hist. ●ccl. l. 5. c. {αβγδ}.  
And so when 
l. 3. c. 3.  Irenaeus 
S. Irenaeus.  affirms of Smyrma, another of those seven Churches, that Polycarpe a disciple of the Apostles, was by them constituted Bishop of that City, and when 
Tertullian de Praescr. c. 32.  Tertullian saith of him, that he was so constituted by S. John, as Clemens was at Rome ordained by S. Peter, 'tis clear that the Apostles power was not determined in themselves: and of this 
Ibid.  Tertullians testimony is most distinct, and universal, that, as in Smyrna, and Rome, perinde utique& caeterae Ecclesiae exhibent quos ab apostles in Episcopatum constitutos, Apostolici seminis traduces habent, the rest of the Churches in like manner exhibit those, which being by the Apostles, constituted Bishops, were their successors, spiritually begotten by them; 
Adv. martion. l. 4. c. 5.  and again, Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit authorem, the order of Bishops being recounted to the beginning, devolves to John the Apostle, the first author of it, speaking of these Churches of Asia, Johannis alumnae, which were taken care of, and fed by S. John.  
To which in the latitude( and not onely as it concerns those Churches) 'twere easy to add many more. That of 
Ep. ad Cor.  Clemens Romanus, 
Clemens Romanus.  mentioned by S. Paul, is most clear, {αβγδ}. Christ was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ; and they went out preaching the Gospel, and doing so, they constituted their first-fruits into Bishops and Deacons of them that should after believe. So 
S. Irenaeus Cont. Haer. l. 4. c. 63.  S. Irenaeus, Successiones Episcoporum quibus Apostolicam, quae in unoquoque loco est, Ecclesiam tradiderunt, The successions of Bishops, to whom they delivered the apostolic Church, which is in every place. And, habemus enumerare eos, qui ab apostles instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, 
Ibid. l. 3. c. 3.  We can reckon them that were by the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Churches, and of Rome, 
Ibid.  that the blessed Apostles committed to Linus the ministry of that Church. And again speaking of Bishops, qui cum successione Episcopatus charisma veritatis certum acceperunt, who with the succession of Episcopacy received the certain grace of truth.  
So S. Cyprian speaking of the keys given to S. Peter, 
S. Cyprian, Ep. 27.  and so to the Bishops of the Church, ind per temporum& successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio,& Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia supper Episcopos constituatur,& omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernetur, Thence by vicissitudes of times and successions, the ordination of bishops, and the account of the Church doth run, that the Church may be constituted upon bishops, and every act thereof be governed by them.  
And Tertullian again, Percurre Ecclesias Apostolic●s, &c. 
Tertullian. de Praesc. c. 36.  Run through the apostolic Churches, and there as yet the Chairs of the Apostles praeside in their places, thus have you Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Rome.  
So S. Athanasius, among those things, {αβγδ}, 
S. Athanasius. Ep. ad Dracent.  which the Lord formed by the Apostles, names the office of the bishop, and therefore adds, that he that despiseth this function, {αβγδ}, despises Christ which ordained it.  
So S. Basil 
S. Basil.  the Great calls Episcopacy {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, the prefecture, or precedency which the Apostles had from God.  
So S. Ambrose, Claves illos in beato Petro cuncti suscepimus sacerdotes, 
S. Ambrose. de Dignit. Sacerd. c. 5, 6.  We all received those keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of S. Peter.  
So S. Augustine, Radix Christianae societatis per seeds Apostolorum& successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur, 
S. Augustine. Epist. 44.  The root of Christian society is diffused by a certain propagation through the world, by the seats of the Apostles, and the successions of Bishops.  
And S. jerome, Quia Apostoli à mundo recesserunt, habes pro illis Episcopos filios, 
S. Jerome in Psal. 45.  Seeing the Apostles are departed from the earth, you have the bishops, their sons, in stead of them.  
And Photius, 
Photius.  Epist. 54. {αβγδ}, The Apostolical and divine dignity, which the Pontifical race inherits by succession.  
And Theophylact, 
Theophylact. in Mat. 18.  {αβγδ}, They that in like manner with S. Peter were vouchsafed the grace of being bishops, have the power to bind and loose, as he had.  
And Oecumenius, 
Oecumenius.  {αβγδ}, &c. The bishops were by the Ordination of the Spirit, as succeeding the Apostles, which were so ordained.  
To all which it will not be amiss to add one Testimony of many, out of the Chronography of Johannes Malela Antiochenus,( a Manuscript in the Oxford public Library) which pretends to a much greater Antiquity then his own, That at the beginning of the Reign of Claudius Caesar, some ten years after Christs ascension, {αβγδ}— {αβγδ}. Euodius next after S. Peter( viz. on the Judaical part, as Ignatius after S. Paul on the gentle part) was ordained bishop of Antioch, {αβγδ}, the great City, i.e. Metropolis of Syria. Adding, that in his time it was, that the name of Christians, Act. 11.26. began, Euodius preaching to them, and imposing that name upon them, who were before called Nazaraeans and Galilaeans. And this passage is by Suidas transcribed from this Author.  
Thus hath this controversy been sufficiently cleared by some remains in the Scriptures, to which, as they are interpnted by us, to the deducing our conclusion from them, the concordant Testimonies of all Antiquity have most readily afforded their suffrages.  
And then, as to the settling the Monarchy of the Jews, the way set down in Scripture is this, that God by a Prophet sent immediately from him, designed first the person of Saul, and after of David, and after, the succession or line of David( by Solomon, and Rehoboam) came down from father to son, through all the Kings of Judah, without any new revelation, or mission of Prophets, to anoint and constitute a new King, when the former was deceased: or( rather) As, when God had first called Moses, and by Miracles sealed him a Commission from heaven to be ruler over the Jews, and after taken of the Spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the Elders to be his assistants, For the succession to either of those Offices, there was no more used, or thought needful, but that Moses should lay his hands on Joshua, and give him a charge, and put some of his honour upon him, &c. Num. 27.18, 19, 20, 21. and that the Seventy, which were thus created to their office, should by imposition of hands admit others to the same dignity, So for the settling Governors in the Church, God first sent down his Son Jesus Christ to be personally the founder, and Head of it, sent down his Spirit to demonstrate, and constitute him so, and after his departure, this power being before his death instated on the Apostles, the holy Ghost again descended on those Apostles, 
The manner of succession.  and some the like prodigies from heaven were used towards others, for their first settling them in their dignities. But when that was done, the whole business of a succession was provided for, by a more easy& familiar course, that those that were thus sent by the Apostles, through imposition of their hands( as they had been by Christ, through the descent of his Spirit, hovering over, and resting on them, and as Christ by his Father, with the like solemnity) should, after the same manner, communicate it to others, fitly qualified for it.  
Which that it was actually done in the several Churches, as it cannot be expected to be recorded in the New Testament, which can speak no farther then to those times of which it writes, so to some mentions of it, which are found there, infinite suffrages are added from the following Writers, by whom it far more evidently appears, that this Power of the Church did not end in the Apostles persons, but continued to their successors, the Bishops in the several branches, then by the Old Testament,& other jewish writings now extant, it appears, either that it was Gods Will that the son should succeed the father in the kingdom( of which yet there is no doubt, when it was not countermanded by a Prophet sent from God) or that in the Sanhedrin new men were received into the places of the deceased, of which there is yet no doubt made by any.  
Having cleared the whole matter thus far, there will now be no need to declare what Powers they are, which are thus conveyed to the Bishops, or other Officers in the Church, it being already manifest, that the power of planting, governing and continuing of the Churches, being first vested in Christ, was from him derived to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Bishops, and so that the power of Preaching, Baptizing, Teaching, Confirming, Consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist, binding and losing, blessing in Marriage, visiting and praying over the sick, and, at last, constituting others like themselves, either in whole by communicating entirely their whole power to them, or in part, by giving them some limited Powers for some certain Offices were thus communicated. 
Commission required.   
Of which all that will be necessary to be added, is onely this, which natural reason dictates to every one, that no man ought to assume to himself any Office in any Society, but he that is designed to it by him that hath the supreme Power in it, nor consequently in the Church, but he that is called, as was Aaron, i.e. hath received Mission, or Commission from God, which being not now pretended by any to be received immediately from heaven▪ there is but one way imaginable for any man to claim it, viz. by receiving it from them, who immediately have received it from heaven. And therefore S. Cyprian speaking of the heretics and Impostors of his time, de Unit. Eccl. p. 23. chooses to give this, as a principal part of their Character, Hi sunt qui se ultrò apud temerarios conven●s sine divinâ dispositione praeficiunt, qui se Praepositos sine ullâ Ordinationis lege constituunt, qui nemine Episcopatum dante Episcopi sibi nomen assumunt, sedentes in Pestilentiae Cathedra, &c. These are they that of their own accord, without Gods appointment, set themselves up among their temerarious assemblers, who constitute themselves Rulers without any Law of Ordination, who assume the name of Bishops, when no man gives them the power, and so sit in the Chair of Pestilence( in stead of the Episcopal Chair) &c.  
And then the whole matter is devolved to a short issue, that every one that thus runs, is obliged to show his Commission, by which he may appear to be sent. And that being once produced, to whatsoever acts that extends, to those he will be allowed to be sufficiently authorised, but to nothing else.  
And whosoever will not stand to this award, must not onely cast off the Church of Christ from being his Mother, confess Christ so far from being a favourer, that he is a professed enemy to his pretences, but withall must aclowledge himself to have given a precedent for all the unreasonable claims, and violences, and oppressions in the world, which must all commence regular, and just, when it shall once be allowed, that any power belongs to any, which cannot justify( and doth not so much as pled) the derivation from above.  
To deduce this general conclusion concerning Ecclesiastical Power, to the particular branches of the Ministerial function, hath been of late undertaken by my worthy friend Dr. Jeremy tailor, which hath therefore superseded that part of the task, to which I were otherwise obliged now to proceed.  
In stead whereof, it will onely be seasonable to admonish this one thing, 
The office of Teaching.  That the office of public teaching, which is of all others now adays most frequently invaded by those, who are not sent, is so far from being a light and unconsiderable, that it is indeed, next that of Ordination,( which is the communicating of the whole power) the most Apostolical part of the Ministerial function, and that which cannot with any safety to the Church of Christ, be permitted to lie in common to all invaders, as being the proper instrument of disseminating true or false doctrine, and giving confidence to all the practices, that are consequent to either, and upon the concord, or disagreement of the teachers, it is visible, that either unity or divisions in the Church are directly, and immediately built.  
From whence it is necessary consequent, that the whole well-being of the Christian Church, which consists in unity, as the well-being of a body in the health of it, nay the very being itself, which consists in the truth of the Doctrine, and obedience to the Institutions of Christ, depends, in an eminent manner, upon the due qualifications of those which are instructed with the office of teaching in the Church. And if it be not in the power of the Governors of any National Church, to design the persons that shall be entrusted with that office, to restrain those, whom they shall judge unmeet for that trust, and to prescribe forms of wholesome doctrine, within which all shall be obliged to contain themselves, It will not be possible to preserve either truth or peace in any Nation, nor consequently Christianity itself, which is made up of these two, and may as possibly be transformed into the direct contrary( whether judaisme, or Mahomedanism, or Idol-worship, or Atheism) as we see it is from truth in any particular point to the contrary error, by the advantage of this one instrument of Conveyance, when he that goes out to sow, carries nothing but cockle and darnel in his sack with him.  
And therefore it is observable, that among the several Titles of the Bishops in the Scripture, 
Teacher, the title of the Bishop in Scripture. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. 1 Tim. 5.17.  that of {αβγδ}, Teacher, is a principal one, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. the office of labouring {αβγδ} in the doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.17. belonging to the {αβγδ} the Praefect there, As in Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. after the Anagnostes, or Reader, had red the portion of Scripture out of the Apostles or Prophets, {αβγδ}, the Praefect, i.e. the Bishop makes the Exhortation, in like manner as Act. 13. we see practised by S. Paul the Apostle, where after the reading of the Law, follows the {αβγδ}, the word of Exhortation to the people, which, it seems, was not the Readers, but the Doctors office.  
And although the Office of Teaching in the Church have been permitted to others besides Bishops, yet sure to none, but those, to whom the Bishops have thought fit to communicate it, by imposition of hands, and special licence, the force of the Ancyran and Laodicean council, {αβγδ}, that none should do any thing in every Province, without being permitted by the Bishop with his Letters, extending to this, that no man should undertake the office of teaching the people, but he that had his mandate, were thus licentiate to do it.  
Having thus briefly set down the positive doctrine, and deduced it out of the clear story of Scripture, and the first times, which demonstrate the succession of Officers in the Church, to be no temporary Institution, confined to that season of the planting of the Gospel, I should be willing now to consider all that hath by any adversary been with any show of reason pretended to the contrary: but being not so well versed in the Modern Pamphlets, as would qualify me to attempt the doing of that exactly, the most probable way I can think of, is to consult the Sociman Writers, who being certainly the first, that from the beginning of Christianity have in this controversy appeared against us( and the men to whom the late Divinity of these evil times oweth so extremely much, that I cannot doubt, 
The Socinians objections.  but their weapons have been made use of on this Theme also) and having in other their invasions of the catholic Christian Doctrines and Institutions, written the most subtly of any, may therefore be presumed not to have betrayed this part of their cause, through any personal defects of theirs, but improved it to the highest, of which the matter hath been found capable.  
And to this end I shall give a short view of what Volkelius, 
Volkelius's arguments, proposed,  their great Master, hath said in this matter, l. 6. c. 12. de Miss. Eccl. Doct. where, under the name of the Pontificii, he sets himself against those, who being not content with the ancient custom of choosing Doctors and Pastors, do now require some singular Mission of them, and demand a continual uninterrupted, and that personal succession of Pastors. 
Against Mission.  From hence there arise two branches of the discourse, 1. of the Mission, 2. of the Succession of Pastors. On the first head, he hath three things to say, First, that the place of Jeremy, c. 23.21. I have not sent them, and yet they ran] can prove nothing against his pretensions, because there they that are found fault with, took upon them to be Prophets, and assumed a Mission, gloried that they had a Province assigned them by God, of revealing some new things to his people, and consequently required credit to be yielded them, as ambassadors of Gods: But the modern Pastors of the Church, profess they are no Prophets, brag not of any such embassy, undertake not to reveal any new thing, but onely inculcate that, which they find in the writings of the Apostles, and aclowledge they may err in understanding and explicating them, and require men to examine what they say, and believe them no farther, then they shall be found to agree with Scripture.  
The second thing( which is but consequent to this) is, that those words, Rom. 10.15. How shall they preach except they be sent?] can yield as little aid to our pretensions, for that is spoken of those who were first to deliver the Christian faith, and so a new thing, to mankind, and to confirm it so, as all were obliged to acquiesce in their doctrine, which they could not have done, if they had not been sent as ambassadors on this errand: Whereas the modern Pastors make not themselves the first Preachers of the faith, assume no such authority to themselves, but contenting themselves with that Ordination of the Church, which the Apostles introduced, think they have done well, if they can but assist Christians in the knowledge and practise of Christian doctrine, which Ordination though it be laudable, and to be retained in the Church, whilst it continues prosperous, yet if in time of persecution the Church be dissipated, and, on any occasion, that Ordination cannot be had, nothing hinders but that they which are able to instruct others to eternal life, may, without Ordination, propound the Christian doctrine to men. And then his third thing is the proof of this last assertion from the example of those Act. 8.4. who being after the death of Stephen dispersed, were not ordained by any, and yet preached the doctrine of Christ, and the hand of the Lord was with them, saith S. Luke. And this is all he saith on the first Head.  
Of the second, concerning the succession of Pastors, 
Against succession. c. 13. De success. Pastorum.  His first observation is, that the Apostles in creating Pastors looked not themselves after any succession, nor desired that it should be looked after in others, but thought it enough if they were so qualified as was required, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. where describing their office very largely, they yet give no precept, or syllable concerning succession; which shows, that this is but a figment of those, that would advance the authority of the Church, and more easily obtrude their doctrines upon others. But, saith he, this stratagem hath not succeeded, as they desired, with wise men, who do deny the necessity of that succession of Pastors, and onely assert the doctrinal, not personal succession and therefore unless the asserters of that necessity( under the name of Pontificii again) can prove that their Bishops succeed the apostles in purity of doctrine, they do nothing, though they never so oft inculcate the succession of the persons. For the doctrinal succession is not so conjoined with the personal, that one cannot subsist without the other, nothing hindering but that the doctrine may be changed, where the personal succession continues: Which appears by their own confession, who aclowledge Bishops of Apostolical Sees to have proved many of them heretical. From whence he concludes, that the personal succession without the doctrinal, doth no more constitute a true Pastor, then the carnal succession from Abrahams loins, makes the Jews the true people of God; and therefore they are not to be counted the successors of the Apostles, who are not begotten by them either after a carnal or a spiritual manner, though they can brag of sitting in their seats And as they that are not born of Abrahams seed, yet imitating his faith, are the true sons of Abraham, so they that follow the Apostles doctrine are true Doctors, though they do not personally succeed in their places.  
This is all that is said by him on this matter, and is far from any close arguing, 
Answer to those against Mission.  or pressing our pretensions with any inconvenience, or absurdity.  
For first, as to the two places of Scripture from Jer. 23. 
Jer. 23.  and Rom. 10. which he saith are not pertinent to our purpose, this discourse, which hath not chosen to make use of them, is no way pressed, or disparaged by them: Onely it may deserve to be considered, whether when the fault is so great to pretend Mission from God, for those Messages or Prophecies which are not delivered by him, it be not a dangerous thing for any man to undertake to interpret Scripture publicly( which is the New Testament notion of prophesying) who is so far from having any Commission from God for so doing, that he is not authorised by the Governors of the Church, wherein he lives, or by any that have any so much as pretence of authority, to justify him, but onely by his own presumption in assuming an Office( for such that of the Doctor is acknowledged to be) without any Call, or Commission for it, from any but himself.  
And for the second place Rom. 10. 
Rom. 10.15.  How shall they preach, except they be sent?] though I aclowledge the circumstances of the place to determine it to another notion, then is ordinarily thought on( viz. that as the Jews could not believe, unless the Gospel were preached to them, so 'twas not imaginable that it should be preached, or they believe, if the Apostles did not look upon them, as their Province, to which they were sent, if they forsook them, and departed to the Gentiles) yet Volkelius's answer supposing a Mission necessary to the first preaching of the Gospel, because that was a new thing to mankind, must aclowledge the same necessity of Mission to authorize any to preach to the Indians, where the Gospel hath not been preached yet; and that being granted, there will be little reason to doubt, but that Catechizing and Preaching in a Christian Commonwealth, being the onely public way to plant Christian Religion in any( which certainly is not born with men here, any more then at Japan) that Mission will be as necessary to this Office of Preaching here, as to the preaching to Indians it would be; The danger being as great in mis-teaching of the baptized ignorant Englishman, as in mis-preaching to the heathen Indian, and the care that is due from the Church to her own members, being as great, as that wherein those that are without are concerned, and no way to prevent that danger, or to express that care, but by maintaining of Order in a Church, and not leaving the Pulpit to the ignorant, or permitting them, whose boldness qualifies them for nothing but errors and impieties, to infuse into others all that poison, which their humour is apt to breed in themselves.  
But then thirdly, the whole ground of his answer, viz. that difference betwixt the Preachers there meant, and the Pastors of the present Church] is very infirm, and impertinent to this matter. For, granting the present Pastors not to assume to be the first Preachers of the faith, &c. why should that render their Mission or Ordination unnecessary? Titus was ordained Bishop of Crete by S. Paul, and Timothy of Ephesus, and that by the imposition of hands, yet neither of them to be the first Preachers of the faith, but {αβγδ}, to set right things that were left unregulated, Tit. 1.5. 
Tit. 1.5.  and to charge some that they teach no other doctrine. Both which suppose established Churches, and not the new planting of the faith. And both these were to ordain Elders, or Bishops, i.e. Pastors, one in every City. And so those again, that were to reside in Christian Cities, and not to preach to Infidels, had yet need of Ordination, and Mission, to fit and qualify them for that( which is now the acknowledged office of the Pastor) as much as Paul or Barnabas had to preach to the Gentiles, that had not heard of Christ.  
But then fourthly, this Author having said of the modern Pastors, that they content themselves with that Ordination of the Church, which the Apostles introdueed, hath made all farther answer of ours unnecessary: For it being manifest by what hath been said, that the Apostles introduced the Ordination for which we contend, if that be had by all that undertake the office of teaching in the Church, I shall have nothing to charge, or except against them: and because he acknowledgeth that Ordination laudable, and such as is to be retained in the Church, whilst it continues prosperous, and onely pleads for the instructing others to eternal life without Ordination, in case that cannot be had, through persecution, &c. therefore I suppose the whole question, as it is by him argued, devolves to this, What is lawful, or fit to be done in case of tha● necessity: And to that belongs his proof produced from Act. 8.4. 
Act. 8.4,  when, faith he, they that were dispersed after the death of Stephen went out and preached without Ordination.  
But to this issue of the whole matter, the answer is obvious, First, 
Case of necessity.  that whatsoever excuse from necessity can be pretended for them that are persecuted, this cannot with any reason be produced for the persecutors, when they that have cast out the Governors, and settled ministry of any particular Church, shall assume and invade their Offices, and so being guilty of introducing the necessity( or being themselves the onely Fates, that have imposed these indissoluble Laws) cannot be excused by that pretended Necessity.  
But then for the persecuted, who alone can be supposed to make this claim to the excuse of necessity, I answer, Secondly, that when any persecution lies on any particular Church, nothing hinders any persecuted son of that Church to seek Ordination, or Mission from the fathers of it, unless all of them be swept away by the supposed persecution, and their light be quiter put out in Israel. And if that blast that extinguishes all, should be so sudden and violent, that it cannot be prevented, or resisted, the old Israelitish way of calling to the next of kin to raise up seed to the deceased brother, is a good hint of advice and direction in this case, viz. to borrow light from some neighbors Candle, Ordination, or Mission from some other Church, which cannot without great unchristian charity think fit to deny that duty of Mercy, when it is begged of them.  
And if yet, upon this morally impossible supposition, Ordination should be no way compassable, then thirdly, I shall not doubt to yield as much as is pretended, that, in case of unblamable necessity, they which have received the Faith, and are able to instruct others to eternal life, may without Ordination propound the Christian doctrine to men, and to an Orphan brother or sister, any brother supply the place of the Charity, though not usurp the Authority of a Father.  
But then fourthly, to the Argument drawn from Act. 8.4. 
Act. 8.4.  I answer, that those that are there said to have gone every where preaching the Word, do not any way appear to have done it without Mission or Ordination. For first, the [ all they that were scattered abroad] v. 1. cannot be supposed to be [ the whole number of Christians( called the multitude of disciples, c. 6.2.) that were at Jerusalem, except the Apostles] for if so, there would then have been little for the Apostles to do that were left behind. 'tis much more reasonable to refer the[ {αβγδ} all] to the[ {αβγδ} Church]( which is the immediate antecedent, and may denote the Governors and Officers of the Church, all Ecclesiastical persons, the Apostles, the Bishop of the Church, and his seven Deacons, and those sure were the men, on whom the persecution fell, witness Stephen, c. 6. 9. and consequently those will be supposed to be dispersed by it) or else to the seven Deacons peculiarly, who had been constituted c. 6. and from that place to this, the story of Stephens dispute, and Sermon, and stoning, set down as it were in a Parenthesis, and then c. 8.1. upon the great Persecution that was against the Church, {αβγδ}, they were all dispersed; Of these seven, Stephen slain, and all the rest dispersed, and agreeably it follows immediately, v. 5. Philip( one of these seven ordained Deacons) went down and preached Christ to the Samaritans, and, having converted, baptized them, but, being but a Deacon, could not lay hands on them, or ordain Elders among them, the Apostles from Jerusalem were sent to do that: And then this passage of story will be as far as any in Scripture, from inferring the worthlessness of Mission or Ordination, being a clear Testimony for the necessity of it.  
To this it might be farther added, that although they are all said to be dispersed, except the Apostles, yet it is not said that all the Apostles remained behind, and indeed we find not in this, or any other story, that above three or four of the Apostles did any time continue there, and then, beside the six Deacons, there might be eight or nine Apostles contained in that number of the[ {αβγδ}, all] And as that makes it more reasonable to conclude [ the Church] in the notion of Ecclesiastical persons, and not[ the multitude of disciples] to be the antecedent to[ {αβγδ}, all] so it makes it less necessary to conclude, that they that Preached the Word every where, did it without Ordination.  
However, if these were not the[ {αβγδ} the all] but others beside these contained in that number, c. 11. 19. yet of them these two things must be observed, First, that they were, in a remarkable manner, filled all with the holy Ghost, c. 4. 31. which was certainly done to fit them for some extraordinary work, such as there follows, the speaking the word of God with boldness. And for this they were as fully qualified by the descent of the holy Ghost upon them, and the effects thereof, speaking with tongues, or prophesying, or gifts of healing, as any are by imposition of the Apostles hands pretended to be. And yet secondly, all that we find assumed by them, is divulging the Gospel, wheresoever they came, c. 8.4. and 11.19. And that liberty where the Gospel is not yet known, we shall not deny to any. And this is all that is necessary to be said to his Objections on the first branch of the Question.  
As for the second, his exceptions against the necessity of an uninterrupted succession, 
Answer to those against succession.  the frivolousness of the arguments will render a sufficient reason of the designed brevity of these returns to them. For first, the arguments from the Apostles not looking after succession, nor desiring that others should look after it, nor giving any mandate concerning it, are all Negative Arguments, à testimonio, and therefore conclude nothing.  
But then secondly, the Apostles ordaining of others, which is mentioned, being itself the taking care for succession, and so their setting down the qualifications of those that were to be ordained, and especially the leaving Ti●us distinctly to this end, that he might ordain in every City, are so many clear demonstrations of this truth, that the Apostles took care of succession.  
And it falls out, that we have( ex abundanti, much more then is needful to the justifying of our pretensions) a most eminent Testimony of Clement, 
The Testimony of Clemens Romanus for succession.  S. Pauls fellow-labourer( mentioned by him with so much honour) in his Epistle to the Corinthians,( {αβγδ}, &c. Our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention about the name( i.e. Dignity, or Authority) of Episcopacy; for which cause therefore having perfect fore-knowledge, they constituted Bishops( and Deacons) and after gave a 
{αβγδ}. See Dissert. V. c. 7. §. 2.  series, or catalogue, or succession, that when they dyed, other approved persons might succeed( {αβγδ}) to that office. So far is it from truth, that the Apostles took no care for succession, and so far that from concluding that this pretended succession is but a commentum, or stratagem to advance the designs of ambitious men, or seducers.  
But for that which he next adds, that this stratagem hath not succeeded with wise men, who deny that necessity of succession, &c. It is far from concluding any thing, but that the Writer was willing to persuade men, that he and his fellow-Sectaries, were wise men, for, besides that the unsuccessfulness of it doth not prove it a lie,( for truth hath not always had the Monopoly of successses) it would be hard for him to show any one man in the world, before Socinus, and his followers, that have avowedly opposed the Mission, and succession of Apostolical officers. And then to make such a leap over almost 1600. years, from the Apostles time to them, to pitch upon a thin society of wise men, and then, without any Testimony, but their own of themselves, to presume their own wisdom, and, by drawing an argument from it, prejudge all other men, is a practise so far from concluding in any mood, or figure, that it is indeed a proving the same by the same. Volkelius and some few of his Compeers oppose succession, and their argument to justify their doing so, is, because they have thought fit to oppose it.  
As for the distinction betwixt doctrinal and personal succession, as I aclowledge it a reasonable distinction, so I cannot but proclaim that most unreasonable, which from thence he immediately infers, that therefore, unless the asserters of the necessity of succession, can prove that their Bishops succeed the Apostles in purity of doctrine, they do nothing. For certainly they which do not all, may yet do something, and he that said, half was more then all, was not so grossly out, as he that made it equal with nothing. It may, and is doubtless true, that the now present Bishop of Rome succeeds the first Bishops of that See, and he that asserts that, asserts one truth, and I, in asserting( if I can also justify) it, have done all that is necessary in the point in hand,( because the present Question engages me to no farther undertaking) though to him that would infer that the Church of Rome hath no errors in it now, it is a most feeble medium for his turn. And in order to that conclusion 'tis true, that he that doth not prove a doctrinal as well as personal succession, doth nothing in effect, nothing of force or validity toward his end, viz. of proving that there are no errors in the Church of Rome.  
And for the small inconsiderable improvement which he makes to his argument by the resemblance of the carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham, that the personal succession without the doctrinal, doth no more constitute a true Pastor, then the carnal succession from Abrahams loins, makes the Jews the true people of God; this is founded in the old trivial equivocation of the word [ true.] For as the true Pastor signifies him that is truly called to that office, it is apparent, that the personal succession alone infers that, there being no doubt with any, but that he may be this day a true Bishop, which is to morrow an heretic, fit to be degraded, and indeed he were not capable of being deposed were he not truly possessed of that honour And this is the onely notion of a true Pastor that our present pretensions are concerned in; For that the succession to S Peters Chair, doth conclude the infallibility of the Popes Decrees, or the [ verity] in the other notion, i.e. veracity of all that so succeed, is no part either of our faith, or present Interests, who know that the Jews are Jews, even when they have crucified Christ, and as truly so now, since their sins have made that name the vilest Proverb of Reproach, as they were, when it denoted most magnificently the peculiar People of God. And though by Christs taking down the partition, and Gods making his Promises not to Abrahams progeny, but the children and followers of his faith; it comes oft to pass, that he is a spiritual, which is not a carnal son of Abraham, yet can it not, by that incompetent similitude, be concluded, that he that follows the Apostles doctrine, is a true Pastor, though he succeed not personally in any of their places: For if so, it would presently be concluded, that every orthodox female Christian, which by being so, is supposed to follow the Apostles doctrine, were a true Pastor also. The old rule is true, that similitudes are not argumentative, and that the thing which they are most apt to infer, is, that he is to seek for arguments, that thinks fit to make use of them.  
I shall need say no more to these objections, but that they are the best, that a sort of very subtle disputers have been able to produce, and, that the matter yielded them no better, is not to be imputed to them, that are not ordinarily observed to be ill managers. As it is, I have no reason to complain of the injury, that I have by this means come more speedily to my harbour.  
Where having put in, I soon find myself called out again by our own countryman, 
Mr. Hobbes's objections.  Mr. Hobbes in his Leviathan( c. 42. Of a Christian Cemmonwealth) Where in the midst of a rhapsody of as strange Divinity, as since the dayes of the gnostics, and their several Progenies, the Sun ever saw( a new Trinity, not of persons, but personators, a new Heaven, and Hell, both upon this Earth of ours, the Heaven consisting of single persons, that are eternal in their own persons, the Hell of married men, that by the advantage of getting children, are, though their persons be amnihilated, aeternized by their successive Posterity, and a whole scheme of Phaenomena, bearing suitable proportion with these Principles) I find a Section Of Ordination of Teachers, and am unwilling to resist the Temptation of annexing here a brief view of it.  
It begins thus, As the Apostles, mathias, Paul, and Barnabas, were not made by our Saviour himself, but were elected by the Church, i.e. by the assembly of Christians; namely, mathias by the Church of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas by the Church of Antioch: So were also the Presbyters and Pastors in other Churches elected by the Churches of those Cities: For proof whereof let us consider, &c. The whole doctrine of that Section being contained in these words, and all that follows being but attempts to prove, It will not be amiss to consider them more particularly, and observe how many misadventures will be soon discernible in them. The first is the confounding of Election and Ordination, 
Election& Ordination.  which are by him supposed to be one, but are indeed two distant things. That by him they are made one, already appears, by comparing the title with the subject matter of the Section. The title is Ordination of Teachers, but the subject matter Election; and to that the subsequent proofs belong also, that from Act. 14. from Tit. 1. from the practise of the Election of the Bishops of Rome, put it out of question.  
Now that Election and Ordination are several things, 
Differ.  is sufficiently known to every man that measures the nature of words, either by Usage or Dictionaries; onely for the convincing of this Gentleman, or others, who think not themselves obliged to the observation of such vulgar Laws, I shall propose these evidences. In the story of the creation of the Deacons of Jerusalem, Act. 6. there are two things distinctly set down, one proposed to the multitude of disciples to be done by them, another reserved to the Apostles; that which the {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}, brethren or disciples, were to do, was {αβγδ}, to look out men, v. 3. but that with these three bounds, 1. to take seven, neither more, nor fewer; 2. those, men generally known, and reputed of, {αβγδ}; 3. in such estimation for fullness of the Spirit of Faith, of wisdom, or discretion for managery of affairs. According to which rules prescribed them by the Apostles, they proceed v. 5. {αβγδ}, &c. and they choose Stephen, &c. Here( looking out, and choosing, either one preparative to the other, or two words signifying the same thing) Election of the persons was by the Apostles permitted to the multitude of the brethren; but still the {αβγδ}, constituting, or ordaining, v. 3. is reserved to the Apostles. In order to which it follows v. 6. that as they which choose the persons, {αβγδ}, set them before the Apostles: so the Apostles, and not they, prayed and laid their hands upon them. Where constituting and imposition of hands being directly the thing which is by all men understood by Ordination, is appropriated to the Apostles, though the Election of the persons within the forementioned limits, is by them allowed or permitted to the multitude of the disciples.  
The same may appear in that higher matter, the advancing of mathias to the Apostolacy, if( as S. Luke must, so) this Gentleman may be believed against himself, That the Election of mathias was not by suffrages of men, but by lot, Act. 1.26. 
Act. 1.26.  and that as an {αβγδ} demonstration, {αβγδ}, whom God( not whom the Congregation) had choose, v. 25. appears most evidently by S. Luke. But for the Ordination of this Apostle, that, saith this Gentleman, p. 288. lin. 10. was the act of the Congregation, which though it be far from all truth( all that was done in it being done by the Apostles onely in the midst, i.e. in the presence of all the disciples) yet I shall not now resist it, but take him at his word, and from thence conclude, that the Election being by S. Luke attributed to God, and the Ordination by himself to the Congregation, Election and Ordination must be two severals, and not the same act.  
The same may appear again in his own instance of Paul and Barnabas, Act. 13.2. 
Act. 13.2.  The holy Ghost said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them. There again it is apparent, that God from heaven had chosen Saul( that {αβγδ}, Act. 9.15. 
Act. ● 15.  vessel of Election, to bear his name) and Barnabas, to that office of Apostolacy, and given appointment to Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, the Bishops of Syria, to separate, i.e.( as we have shewed) to ordain them, or sand them forth to the work. And accordingly they did, v. 3. having prayed, and fasted, and laid hands on them, they dismissed them, or gave them their solemn Mission or Commission. Where 'tis again clear, that the Election of the persons was the act of God, from the holy Ghost, but the imposition of hands, Separation, Missien, Ordination, was the work of men there name, and commanded to do it. So when Timothy was made Bishop by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, as his Ordination must be imputed to those Bishops or Elders, that laid hands on him: so there is also mention of {αβγδ}, 1 Tim. 4.14. 
● Tim. 4.14.  of prophesy, or revelation of Gods Will, by which that grace was given him, i.e. by which he was elected to that dignity; and so S. Chrysostome, and Theophylact affirm of that place, {αβγδ}, The dignity of Teaching and Priesthood( i.e. Episcopacy) being great, stands in need of Gods suffrage for the admitting of a worthy person, and so( as of old by prophesy Priests were made, so) was Timothy chosen to the Priesthood.  
And as of Timothy, so of all other the Bishops of Asia, when S. Paul saith of them, Act. 20.28. 
Act. 20.28.  that the holy Ghost {αβγδ} had set them overseers, I suppose that is to be understood of their election or nomination to those dignities. For so I am sure Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Apud Euseb. Hist. l. 3. ●. {αβγδ}.  speaking of S. John, that he was entreated to go to the neighbouring Cities, adds, that he went accordingly, {αβγδ}, &c. {αβγδ}, and constituted Bishops, &c. of those that were signified by the Spirit, where the Spirits signification notes the election or nomination of the persons, which was from God immediately, but the constituting them was the ordination of S. John.  
And so in that Testimony of Clemens Romanus formerly produced, {αβγδ}, the Apostles constituted bishops, trying or approving them by the Spirit: where still the trial or approbation, being all one with the election of the persons, was an act of the holy Spirit, revealed to them, but the constitution or ordination, their own act, to which they were formerly authorised by Christ.  
And so in his other instance of the Bis●ops of Rome, from the beginning till this time, as in all other practise over the Christian world, Election and Ordination are distinguished, not onely in respect of the acts, one subsequent to the other, but very frequently in respect of the Electors and Ordainers, the whole college of Cardinals, that are present, being the persons, to whom the election of the Pope now belongs, but onely the Bishop Cardinals laying on their hands in the ordination.  
And so it is known in this kingdom, that the congee d'eleir, the Commission to choose a Bishop was by the King sent to the Dean and Chapter in the Cathedral, as to the standing Synod of that Diocese, but the ordination was to be done by those that were Bishops before him.  
This I should not thus largely have insisted on, were it not the {αβγδ}, the procreative mistake, or ignorance, that produced those other, that I am now to proceed to.  
A second great mistake is, that he affirms of mathias, 
Election Matth●as.  Paul and Barnabas, that they were elected by the Church: where first, it hath already appeared by plain Texts of Scripture, that every one of these three was elected by God himself. Of mathias 'tis clear by the manner of it, by lottery, the disposition of which is of the Lord, saith Solomon, and by the {αβγδ}, Act. 1.24. 
Act. 1.24.  thou( i.e. God) hast chosen. And of the other two, {αβγδ}, the holy Ghost said, i.e. commanded to separate them( by name) to the work, {αβγδ}, to which I( i.e. the holy Ghost) have called them. And it is not imaginable how this Gentleman should view,( as 'tis clear he did) and not discern the importance of such plain places.  
And secondly, when by the Church he expresses himself to mean the Assembly of Christians, the Church of Jerusalem and of Antioch, It is by that rendered much more unreconcilable to all appearance of truth: For till Church was so explained, it was possible he might have meant the Apostles, or Governors of the Church, who had somewhat to do in this matter; whereas the Assembly of Christians were( as far as can be discerned by the Text) utterly unconcerned in both of them.  
Of the choosing of mathias there were two parts, the naming of two, and the casting lots between them two; the former of these was no act of the Church, much less the latter.  
The two were not name by the Church, but by the Eleven, for in the midst of them( under the title of {αβγδ}, Peters brethren, or fellow-disciples, and those set down by name, v. 13.) S. Peter stood up, v. 15. and speaking of Judas, saith, he was numbered with us, v. 17. i. e. with himself, and them, to whom he spake, the college of Disciples, or Apostles peculiarly, not the whole number of believers, or the Church of Jerusalem; and so again v. 21. the men that consorted with us, are those that followed Christ together with the twelve, and v. 22. A witness of the resurrection {αβγδ} with us, must needs refer to the eleven peculiarly, for they onely, not the whole Church, were to be those witnesses: Upon which it follows, {αβγδ}, v. 13. and they appointed, or pitched on two, where the [ they] must needs be they, to, and of whom he spake all this while, and so the eleven, and not the hundred and twenty, which are never mentioned but once, and then 'tis in a parenthesis, v. 15.  
And if the eleven were they that nominated the two, then it must needs follow, that it was they also that gave in the {αβγδ}, the lots of them, one lot with the name of Barsabas, the other of mathias upon it, for so the {αβγδ}, they gave, v. 26. must connect with the {αβγδ}, they appointed, and conclude the same persons to have done both. And indeed there could be no use of the Congregation for that, to throw in, and take out the lots, That must be the work of some two persons at the most, and so no work of an Assembly.  
And so likewise at the constituting of Saul and Barnabas, the Text is express, 
The Election of Paul and Barnabas.  that they were Doctors and Prophets that prayed, and laid hands on them, and so the Ordination was no more the act of the Assembly, then the Election appeared to be.  
It was hardly possible to have contrived a greater number of affirmations into so small a compass: And then if that which follows with the [ so] be so indeed, If the Pastors and Presbyters in other Cities, were elected by the Churches in those Cities, so, as mathias, and Paul, and Barnabas were, if one be no truer then the other, the whole matter is soon come to a fair issue.  
But however it hath proved with his first affirmation, which was without offer of proof imposed upon us, The practise of the other Cities he undertakes to make proof of.  
And his proofs are two, one taken from Act. 14.23. the other from Tit. 1.5. In the first, Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church; In the second, Titus constituted Elders in every City: Most certainly true. But what is to be inferred from hence? Ergo, The Presbyters and Pastors of other Cities were elected by the Churches of those Cities.  
A Conclusion very remote from these premises: For, first, there is not one word of Election in either place, but of constituting and ordination, which is quiter another thing; and secondly, there is nothing in either place attributed to the Churches of those Cities, but onely to Paul and Barnabas in the one, to Titus in the other. Thus beyond all measure improsperous are this Gentlemans undertakings on this subject.  
The former of these he ingenuously confesses may at first sight be taken for an argument against him, that they themselves ( Paul and Barnabas) choose, and gave them their authority: And so sure 'twill do at the tenth, and twentieth review of it.  
But, saith he, if we consider the original Text of it, it will be manifest, that they were authorised and chosen by the Assembly of the Christians of each City: 
Act. 14.23.  For the words there are, {αβγδ}, When they had ordained them Elders by the holding up of hands in every Congregation: What is the importance of {αβγδ}, we are not now to be taught, having in the beginning of this discourse set it down at large, that though the original of it refer to the ceremony of holding up of hands, yet it signifies simply to ordain or constitute, without any respect to that ceremony; and when it doth refer to it, it always denotes their hands, and suffrages, of whom it is spoken, and cannot be imagined so much as to intimate the suffrages of other men. And then, first, it would be as unreasonable to infer from the original of the word, that that ceremony was there used, as Act. 1. to resolve that they used Counters in reckoning, or numbering mathias with the eleven Apostles, because the word {αβγδ} there, is derived from {αβγδ} a Counter, which was usual in numbering.  
And secondly, if it were granted, that the word must here import( according to the original of it) to ordain by holding up of hands, there is not from thence the least advantage gained toward the desired conclusion. For it was distinctly Paul and Barnabas which did thus {αβγδ} ordain by thus holding up the hands, and not the Assembly of all the Christians. And if no part of this were so, yet thirdly, what he saith of their being authorised and chosen by the Assembly of Christians, is another heap of Confusions: For whatever choosing can be imagined of the Assembly, that must( as the choosing of the Deacons, Act. 6.) be by authority from the Apostles, who again after that, were to give unto them that were so chosen, all the authority that they were to have; And so the choice, whatsoever it were, proceeded, and the authority, followed after; and again, the choice onely was excusable to be from the Assembly, the authority being totally derived from the Apostles: both which are confounded and transposed by this Gentleman.  
But, saith he, the manner of choosing Magistrates and officers in all those Cities, was by plurality of suffrages, and to ordain an officer in any of the Cities, was no mo●e but to bring the people together, to elect him by plurality of Votes: It was therefore the Assembly that elected their own Elders, the Apostles were onely Presidents of the Assembly, to call them together for such election, and to pronounce them elected, and to give them the benediction, which now is called consecration. This is again very far from prevailing any thing toward the desired conclusion. For first, whatsoever be supposed of the manner of electing officers and Magistrates in those heathen Cities, 'tis sure enough that was not the business then in hand; Paul and Barnabas came not thither for the election of an {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}( as of a Maior, or Sheriffs, or Aldermen) in that City. These itinerant Apostles, that were not of their Corporations, were not certainly the Presidents ●f their Courts or Common councils, to assemble, or bring them together for those Elections. This is as remote a conjecture, as that formerly mentioned of Pauls ordaining Elders by the power which he had received from his Master Gamaliel; The truth is visibly in the midst between them, what they did was to constitute Bishops in each City over the Christians, and therein they acted neither as Jews, nor Gentiles, but as Apostles of Christ, from whom they had their authority to preach, to receive believers, to order them in the service of God, and so leaving them, to constitute those which should do it in their absence. All which hath nothing of their heathen customs in it, nay the Apostles( saith 
In Ep. ad Cor.  Clemens, a writer of those times) constituted their first-fruits Bishops of those who should believe, {αβγδ}, who therefore not yet believing, are not imaginable to be the Electors of their Bishops.  
Secondly, what reason can be rendered, why to ordain should be no more, but to bring the people together to elect? It was even now to hold up hands, and ordain by doing so, That differs much from the bare assembling the people: So no grounds are there yet produced for the inferring the Conclusion[ It was therefore the Assembly that elected.]  
And yet thirdly, If again all this were granted to him, he hath so ordered the matter, that it would be nothing available to him: For 'tis by him still acknowledged, that the Apostles gave the benediction, which now is called consecration. And if they did so, that is all we mean by ordination, when by that word we render {αβγδ}, and so all that we contend for in this business: For of ordination it hath formerly been shewed at large, that it was the communicating that power to others, which had by Christ been given to the Apostles; To them it was conveyed by the visible descent of the holy Ghost upon them, from them to others, onely by prayer, and benediction, and imposition of hands, the ceremony of conveying power to successors. And all this we now adays call Consecration, the separating men, i.e. the consecrating, setting them apart to holy offices and dignities in the Church, and if this, all this while, be allowed the Apostles peculiarly, and not the Assembly of Christians, then is all granted, that is by any man pretended to, on this head of Ordination of Teachers.  
For to conclude this matter, though both here and in the place to Titus, there is no one word of Election, or choice to this office, but onely of ordination, giving them Commission who were chosen, yet it is willingly allowed, that the Election of Church-officers doth not always belong to the same persons, who are to ordain. The practise is sufficiently known in this broken Church of ours, The Parochial Minister is chosen, and nominated by the Patron, who is sometimes the whole Congregation, sometimes one principal person in it, the Lord of the Manor, the King, the Bishop, &c. And he( save when it is the Bishop himself that hath the right of Patronage) presents him to the Bishop, and as he, upon approbation of the person, institutes him to that Cure of Souls, so he ordains him by imposition of hands, to the office of a Deacon and Presbyter.  
And so likewise for the ordination or consecration of a Bishop, as was formerly said, The King nominated, the Dean and Chapter did choose,( and if they found just cause to return an {αβγδ}, he is unworthy, in stead of signifying their choice, no doubt they should be heard) but the council of Bishops ordained him. And so still the Election differing so clearly from the ordination, and the election being not the thing contended for, but onely the ordination or consecration, that being yielded to belong to the Bishops or Elders peculiarly, and not to the assembly of Christians, the whole controversy is yielded us, in the eager'st part of the Contention.  
Which being done, I shall not need to contend any farther, or make any answers to the subsequent parts of that Section; Otherwise it were easy to show, that {αβγδ} 
{αβγδ}.  or Antistes, the ordinary title of Bishops in Justine Martyr, and some of the Ancients, was somewhat more then a bare Pres●dent of an Assembly, as that extends but to numbering of votes, declaring who is chosen, and giving a single vote] the name being a name of rule, and dignity, and power, and not onely of Presidency, but Prefecture, and all one with {αβγδ} Bishop( who had the rule of the whole Church, and not onely the principal place, or {αβγδ} in the council) as may appear( among many others) by three ancient Records.  
The one of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to the Athenians, 
Euseb. Hist. l. b. 6. {αβγδ}.  where having made mention of Publius {αβγδ}, the perfect or President of them, he presently mentions Quadratus {αβγδ}, that after the martyrdom of Publius was constituted their Bishop. 
Epiphan. Haer. 72.  The other of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, in his Epistle to Julius Bishop of Rome, where speaking of himself, and other Bishops of the Churches infested by the heretics, {αβγδ}, saith he, {αβγδ}, they have attempted shrewd things against the Churches of God, and us the Presidents, i.e. Bishops of them. The third of the council of Ephesus, Act. 18. where {αβγδ}, the Presidents of the Churches of Cyprus, are the same that in the beginning of the Canon are {αβγδ}, the Bishops of the Province of the Cypriots. And in a word, their very title of {αβγδ}, Presidents, or Prefects of Churches, and not of Synods or councils, is a determination of this business, and concludes them to have had the rule of the Church, and not onely the first place, or Presidency, or Prolocutorship in the council; And therefore Praesidentes is oft the title of Bishops in Tertullian, who yet is known to have asserted the Supreme Authority and Power in the Churches to belong to them.  
I now proceed to the second place, that to Titus, c. 1.5. 
Tit. 1.5.  to examine what advantage he can draw from thence to his pretensions. His words are these, Because all the Churches had their Presbyters ordained in the same manner: where the word is constitute( as Tit. 1.5.) {αβγδ}, for this cause have I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain Elders in every City, we are to understand the same thing, namely, that he should call the faithful together, and ordain them Presbyters by plurality of suffrages. That in this place to Titus there is no syllable of mention either of assembling the faithful, or of suffrages in the ordination of Elders, is apparent to any that shall read the words, and the contrary is not by this Gentleman pretended; Onely by way of analogy with that former place, where he seems to have concluded an intimation of suffrages by holding up of hands, he concludes it must be so here also, though it be not so much as intimated.  
Where first, it were sure more reasonable to interpret S. Lukes obscurer word by S. Pauls plainer( and from thence to conclude, that as Paul at Iconium, so Titus at Crete, was the person that ordained Elders, and not the whole Church) then to interpret S. Pauls plainer by the obscurer of S. Luke, and conclude as he concludes: But then secondly, it hath sufficiently been demonstrated, that no such advantage can be drawn from the word {αβγδ} in that Text where it is used. And then sure it can have no influence on this other, where it is not used, but another of a more undoubted signification. The short is, {αβγδ} signifies indifferently to ordain, or design to any office( without looking back to the gentle customs from whence it was taken) and being sometimes used of God personally, Act. 10.41. is no way limited to popular Elections, unless when it is applied to the Church, or Assembly of many( as 2 Cor. 8.19. it is) and therefore when the Text is clear, that( not the Church, but) Paul and Barnabas did ordain, what a complication of unreasonables will it be, First, from a bare possible Grammatical connotation of one word, to conclude the direct contrary to the whole verse, viz. that they did not ordain, who, saith S. Luke, did, but the Church by plurality of voices; and then secondly, from this one practise thus strangely concluded, to interpret all other plain affirmations of Scripture to a sense quiter contrary to the words, and infer that Titus did not ordain, when S. Paul saith expressly he did, but onely the Assembly of Christians called together by him?  
But, saith he, it had been a strange thing, if in a Town where men perhaps had never seen any Magistrate otherwise chosen, then by an Assembly, those of the Town becoming Christians, should so much as have thought of any other way of election of their Teachers and Guides, i.e. of their Presbyters; otherwise called Bishops, then this of plurality of suffrages. I shall not need dispute whether every Town in Crete, as also Iconium, Lystra, and Antioch, choose all their Magistrates by plurality of suffrages. 'tis sure enough that in this matter there is no place for such arguings: for first, to his mention of a Town, &c. 'tis evident, that believers were at first but few in every Town or City,( they were not whole Corporations at once converted, nor consequently could they act in such capacities) but, as Clemens Romanus saith) they that were by the Apostles constituted Bishops and Deacons in several Cities and Regions, were constituted over those that should after believe, there were oft so few at the present. And then as fast as any did come in to the faith, they readily submitted themselves to those by, and under whom they did come in, and were not at all troubled with the consultation or deliberation, about the way of electing their Teachers and Guides, i.e. their Bishops, as is here by this Gentleman supposed.  
Secondly, it must be remembered, that wheresoever the Gospel was preached, it came originally from Jerusalem, and then, as Agrippa in Philo saith of that City, that it was {αβγδ}, The Metropolis not only of judaea one region, but of many others, {αβγδ}, &c. because of the Colonies which that sent out to egypt, Phoenice, and both the Syria's, nay to Pamphilia, Cilicia, and a great part of Asia, as far as Bythinia and Pontus, &c. So in reason the Church in Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders, Act. 14. were to follow the patterns at Jerusalem. And there we know it was not by the suffrages of the people that an Elder assumed into the Sanhedrin, but the Prince or head of the Sanhedrin received him in by imposition of hands, and so in the creation of Scribes and Doctors of the Law: And for the Church of Christians there, we have already shewed that James the Just, the first Bis●op of that Church, was by the Apostles, not by the Assembly, advanced to that Praefecture. And agreeably in other Churches, it will be much more reasonable( if such considerations may prevail) to deduce the circumstances of ordaining Elders, from the Cu●●omes familiar to them that preached the faith unto them, then from the former usages of them to whom it was preached, who were not to dispute, but to believe, and receive the Institutions, as well as doctrines which were brought them.  
But then thirdly, the matter is yet farther beyond all controversy; For sure the heathen( as formerly the Jewish) Cities, to whom the Gospel was to be preached by Christs command, were not to choose their guides, or Teachers, Christ was not chosen by those to whom he preached( Ye have not chosen me, saith he) he came from heaven on that errand of his Fathers, and happy they, whom he was thus pleased to choose, to call, and preach to. And when his Apostles, after his example, go and preach to all nations, and actually gather disciples, they choose their Auditors, and not their Auditors them: And they that give up their names to the obedience of the Gospel, one branch of that obedience obliges them to observe those who are placed over them by God, not onely their Civil Parents and Magistrates, but Pastors, whom the holy Ghost, either mediately or immediately, hath set over them.  
And so sure there is no place of disputing left, whether they whom the holy Ghost made their overseers, Act. 20.28. had the plurality of the suffrages of the people or no: For, besides that if it were so, never any Apostle or Pastor should be received by the faithful in any City, till a mayor part of the City, by having received the faith, were made capable of receiving him,( which, we know, was not the way, when there was, in comparison, so little faith on the earth, to the far wider fields of infidelity) It will also follow, against those express words of Scripture, that not the holy Ghost, but they have placed the {αβγδ} overseers over them. And then I should gladly be advertised of the reason, why, when S. Paul wrote so many Epistles to whole Churches, he never gave directions for the qualifying, and choosing, and ordaining of Church-officers in any of them, but reserved that seasonably for the business of those Epistles, which were directed to the single persons of Bishops, Timothy and Titus, and that with a {αβγδ}, these things I writ to thee, 1 Tim. 3.14. immediately annexed to the discourse on that matter: It being perfectly vain to instruct him in the due qualifications of those that were admitted to those offices, to which he had no power to choose or ordain any.  
Besides these, many other evidences there are premised in this discourse, which must not in any reason be here repeated, which render the conclusion of this Section most visibly voided of all appearance of truth, that there never was any choosing of Bishops,( before the Emperors found it necessary to regulate them, &c. i.e. at least till Constantines time) but by the Assemblies of Christians in every several Town.  
As for the continual practise even to this day, in the Election of the Bishops of Rome, by which he thinks his assertion confirmed, It is directly and visibly contrary: for at this day, 'tis known, that the Cardinals, that are present, do elect the Pope, and the Bishops among them consecrate or ordain him; and so whatsoever is meant by Election, whether choice of the person, or conveying the office to him, 'tis certain it is not done by the Assembly of the Christians, meaning, as before he expresses himself to do, the whole Congregation.  
And for the argument added to back this Testimony, That if the Bishop of any place had the right of choosing another to the Pastoral office, in any City, at suchtime as he went from thence, much more had he the right to appoint his successor in that place in which he dyed. 'tis not imaginable what this argument can conclude in favour of the disputer: Fo● first, if the Bishop cannot choose his own successor, either removing or dying, yet it follows not( but is far removed from all truth) that the Assembly chooses him; If we speak of Election strictly taken, and differing from Ordination, the Principal of the Clergy, college of Cardinals at Rome, the Chapter of the Cathedral Church in other places, may and are known to do it: And yet a notable testimony of that matter we have already mentioned out of Clemens Romanus, that the Apostles that constituted Bishops in every City, did in their life times make a catalogue of persons that should succeed in every See.  
But if we speak, as this Gentleman doth, more loosely, and make Election and Ordination all one, then the Metropolitan, as Titus in all Crete, and not any inferior Bishop in his own Church, or else the council of Bishops, and not any one Bishop, or, as the ancient Canons require, three Bishops at the least, may and do ordain the successor, and so, though not the removing or dying Bishop, yet not the whole Church, or Assembly of Christians neither.  
That ordinarily the removing or dying Bishop cannot ordain his own successor, is true upon these other accounts, and not upon that one, which is pretended, First, that the election of the Bishop doth belong to other hands, as is premised; Secondly that one single Bishop is by the Canons made incompetent for the consecration of a Bishop, There are to be three at least, See Can. Apost. 1.& 2. and Synod. Nicen. c. 4. And thirdly, that the Canons again command that no Bishop shall be ordained sine titulo, without a Church( to which he is elected) vacant to receive him; which therefore cannot be pretended, as long as the Bishop lives. All which reasons being of force against any mans ordaining his successor, are far from hindering him from being one of the three Bishops, that may ordain any to a vacant Church. And of that sure this Gentleman is sufficiently satisfied, that although the Bishop cannot ordain his own successor, yet he can with other Bishops ordain anothers successor. And therefore it is apparent, that this was but an artifice to amuse his Reader, himself acknowledging the conclusion, which he would seem to invalidate or confute by it.  
Having now dispatched all that this Gentleman hath said of the Ordination of Teachers, I am again permitted to retire, and conclude this Treatise.   

The sixth Quaere. Of the Observation of Christmas-day, and other Festivals of the Church.  
IN discoursing of the annual celebration of the feast of Christs Nativity, it will, to any that were not contentious, bee thought sufficient, to put him in mind of S. Pauls argument, the customary practise of the Church; 
The practise of this Church.  And that in this particular Church of England it is of so ancient usage, that we have no other beginning assigned to it, then the same which our stories give of the plantation of the Gospel among us.  
That it is thus ancient, is evidently supposed and implyed by one objection which some men have to the observation of it, the retaining of some heathen usages in it, of which sort, if there be any continued by the ruder multitude, as they are no part of the office of that feast, and consequently not imputable to the doctrine of our Church in this matter, so are they as undeniable testimonies of the Antiquity, and uninterrupted continuance of this practise, even from the time of our first conversion from heathenism. For otherwise in case of a later date or discontinuance, it is not imaginable how any heathen usage should be found to have been( and still to remain) adherent to it.  
Of the plantation of Christianity among us of this iceland, 
The plantation of Christianity here.  it is acknowledged that there was a double date, the one appertaining to the Saxons or English, the other to the far more ancient Britains.  
For that of the Britains, it was, if History and Monuments may be believed, either Apostolical, or very near the Apostles times. And this will appear less improbable, if we take notice of what is said by S. Paul, 2 Tim. 4.10. that Crescens was gone( sent by S. Pa●l) into Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia: where Galatia being an equivocal word▪ and belonging to Gallia or France,( 1 Mac. 8.2. where it is joined with Spain; and so in Josephus, Ant. l. 12. c. 17, where the Romans are said to have subdued {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, France and Spain) as well as to a part of Asia, anciently inhabited by the Gauls, Epiphanius affirms distinctly( in the heresy of the {αβγδ}) that Gallia or France was the place there spoken of: And so the French have it by ancient Tradition, and so the nearness of France to Italy and Rome, where S. Paul was at the writing of that Epistle, makes it most probable, especially when it is considered that Dalmatia, which is there name with it, is situate over against Italy. And then what is so early affirmed in Scripture of the communicating the Gospel to France, which is so near to us, removes all improbability from those Histories, which record the plantation of the Gospel in these Islands in the Apostles times, which I the rather observe, because Joseph of Arimathea, who is resolved by Mr. cambden out of ecclesiastic Writers( who, saith he, had it ex antiquae fidei authoribus, out of as ancient and credible authors, as we have any) to have planted Christianity here, is said by them to have come hither ex Galliâ, out of France. That this was in Tiberius's reign, is the affirmation of Gildas; And as it is clear by Tertullian, that the British Islands were long before his time converted to Christianity; and by Origen on Ezek. Hom. 4. Britanniam in unius Dei consentire religionem, that Britanny had received the Religion of the one God, i.e. Christianity; so it is in our stories affirmed, and by the Records of other Nations acknowledged, that Lucius the King of Britain( about the year of Christ 180.) was the first king of the whole world which received the Christian faith; and by the Epistle of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome to him( if that be authentic) it doth not onely appear that he was acknowledged by him to be Vicarius Dei in regno suo, the Vicar of God in his own kingdom, i.e. far from any subordination, or subjection to him, that wrote it, but that before that writing of his, and not from that present Bishop of Rome, the kingdom of Britain had( as the words of the Epistle are) 
Susce●istis enim nuper mis●ratione divinâ in regno Britanniae legem& fidem Ch●isti, habetis penes vos in regno utramque paginam, ex illis per consilium regni vestri sume l●g●m,& per illam Dei potentiâ vestrum rege Britanniae regnum.  received by Gods mercy the law and faith of Christ, the New and Old Testament, out of which he advices him by the advice of his Realm to take a Law, and by the same to rule.  
And although by Diocletians persecution the Christian faith and discipline is said to have been sorely shaken here, yet it was not so far extinguished, but that within ten years after three of our Bishop, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfus Coloniae Londinensium, were present and subscribed to the council of Arles, eleven years before the first council of Nice: See council. Gallic. per Sirmund. tom. 1. p. 9. and Sir Henry Spelman in his Anglican councils, p. 23.  
This is sufficiently acknowledged, but yet may receive some light from one observation, The celebration of Easter by the ancient British and Scotish Christians, was contrary to the custom of the Western Church, saith Bede; That this practise of theirs was taken up by themselves upon any novel fancy, may not be imagined, nor indeed is it so charged upon them, 'twas certainly derived to them by their Antecessors, who in all probability took it from the first planters of Christianity among them: And then those must be some such as in the very Apostolical times kept their Easter( as in the East the first Christians did) after the Jewish manner. And so though this be an evidence that neither Peter, nor Paul, nor C●escens, nor any of those that usually accompanied either of those two Apostles, the founders of the Church of Rome, did bring the Christian faith to this iceland, but rather Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon zealots, as others affirm, yet in respect of the antiquity of the Plantation, there was some colour for the affirmation of 
de Pet& Paul. ad diem 29 J●unii.  Simeon Metaphrastes, that S. Peter {αβγδ}, stayed in Britain some time, converted many, and constituted Churches, and ordained Bishops in the 12. year of Nero's reign. And he cites it out of Eusebius, that he spent 23. years in Rome and Britain, and the We●tern Cities. But the authority of that Writer is not great.  
And( as for the feast of Easter, of which there can be no question, so) for the observation of this feast of the Nativity among those first British Christians( though our Records of those times are but very thin and dark, yet) one evidence we have of moment in this matter, referred to in a 
Pract. Cat. p. 183.  former discourse, but now fit to be set down more fully. Christmas day is frequently called in our old Monuments {αβγδ}, i. e. Midwinter-day: 
Midwinter-day.  From whence, I suppose, it may reasonably be concluded, that when that name was first applied to that day, the day whereon Christmas fell, was in the Calendar either conincident with, or not far removed from the Winter Solstice. Now supposing with the Western Church, that our Saviour was born on the 25. of December( as shall anon be farther proved, and doth in some measure appear, by remembering, that the day which from those times we still continue to call Midsummer-day, is on the 24th of June, and so directly half a year from the 25th of December) it will follow by calculation( with which I shall not trouble and tyre the Reader) that it must be soon after our Saviours times, that this day was capable of that appellation, and consequently that the day was here celebrated so early. Now( we know) by reason of the procession of the Aequinoxes and Solstices, the Solstitial or Midwinter-day, when the Sun enters Capricorn, is a fortnight distant from our Christmas-day, and so the Summer Solstice is proportionably distant from Midsummer-day, as we still call it. And therefore the beginning of the celebration of this day in this Nation, must be fastened at, or near that time when this 25th of December fell on the Winter Solstice, i.e. a fortnight sooner then the Gregorian Calendar hath placed it, which being considered, will argue the celebration very ancient, and bordering upon Christs time. And partly upon this account it was that Pope Gregory XIII. undertook the reformation of the Calendar, to reduce the Aequinoxes( upon which the celebration of Easter depends) and so consequently the Solstices, to the seats they obtained at the time of the Nicene council: But he went no higher; If he had, this might have been more evident.  
This being thus far clear, will set these farther characters upon this, 
The B●itissh Church independent from Rome.  or any other Christian solemnity, Easter, Pentecost, &c. which is of original or immemorial usage in this Nation; First, that the antiquity of it doth no way argue that it hath any thing of the corruptions of the Roman Se● adhe●ing to it, but evidently the contrary: For it is manifest by the stories that Augustine the Monk was very far from being the first planter of Christianity in this Nation, that he found British Bishops here at his coming, from whose Predecessors and founders, and not from his Ordo Romanus, this Church of ours is obliged, with acknowledgement to God, to date its Christianity. To this purpose we may see the 
C●ncil. Anglic. p. 188.  answer of the Bishop of Bangor to Augustine the Monk, requiring his subjection to the Roman Church, Bid yspie a diogel, &c. i.e. Notum sit,& absque dubitatione vobis, quòd nos omnes sumas,& quilibet nostrum, obedientes& subditi Ecclesiae Dei& Papae Romae,& unicuique vero& pio Christiano, ad amandum unumquemque in suo gradu, in perfectâ charitate& ad juvandum unumquemque eorum in verbo& facto, fore filios Dei. Et aliam obedientiam quam istam non scio debitam ei quem vos nominatis esse Papam, nec esse Patrem Patrum vendicari& postulari. Et istam obedientiam nos sumus parati dare& solvere ei,& cuique Christiano continuò. Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernatione Episcopi Caerlegionis supper Osca, qui est ad supervidendum sub Deo supper nobis, ad faciendum nos servare viam spiritualem. Be it known to you and without doubt, that we are, and every one of us obedient and subiest to the Church of God and Pope of Rome, and to every true and pious Christian, to love every one in his degree with perfect charity, and to help every one of them by word and dead to be the sons of God. As for any other obedience, I do not know that I owe it to him, whom ye call the Pope, or that he hath right to challenge or require to be the Father of fathers. This obedience we are ready to give and pay to him, and to every Christian continually. Besides we are placed under the government of the Bishop of Caerlyon upon Oske, who is to supervise under God over us, to make us keep the spiritual way. So again, Sir Henry Spelman, council. Anglic. p. 26. out of the Annals of Gisburn, cites thus, Ab urbe legionum Meneviam translata est seeds Metropolitana, tempore Sancti David Episcopi per Regem Arthurum, ubi steterunt 13. Archiepiscopi, usque Samsonem,— à quo usque tempus Henrici primi sederunt Meneviae undecem Episcopi,& usque ad hoc tempus Episcopi Meneviae à suis suffraganeis Wallensibus ibidem fuerunt consecrati, nullâ penitus professione vel sub●ectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae. From Caerlyon the Metropolitan Seat was translated to Saint Davids by King Arthur, in the time when Saint David was Bishop there, where there stood thirteen Archbishops until Samson, from whence to the time of King Henry the first, there sate at Saint Davids eleven Bishops, and until this time the Bishops of S. Davids were there consecrated by their own Welsh suffragans, without making any profession of subjection to any other Church. To this I might add that of Boniface the Martyr, styled the Apostle of Germany, who in a matter of doubt consulted not onely the Bishops of Rome, but Nothelme also Primate of England, and by the Rescript of Nothelme reforms the Pope's, saith 
T. 9. Ann. 766. n. 47. 53.  Baronius: And that of Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury under William the Conqueror, who being often cited by Gregory VII. to Rome, 
Ep Greg. 7. in council. t. 4.  would not be wrought on either by his threats or blandishments to obey him. But these are not so pertinent to our present matter.  
Secondly, that any such ancient usage of this particular Church, if it had no other ground to stand on( as its foundation) or concurrence of all other Christian Churches( as pillars) to sustain it, were a very competent Authority for the present continuance of such a practise in this kingdom. This Anglicane, or rather ancient British Church, being one of those, which by its foundation, and by force of the known Canon in the Co●ncel of Ephesus, in the case of the Cypriots, is {αβγδ}, 
{αβγδ}.  subordinate to no foreign Patriarch, and consequently invested with unquestionable power to institute ceremonies for its self( as it shall judge most useful, most for edification, and most agreeable to the analogy of faith) which consequently may not, without great temerity, be changed and abolished by any. And therefore to every one, which is still willing to continue a member of this persecuted Church, wherein he was baptized, and yet hath been willing to comply either with the humour of these late times( in that which he counts no substantial part of his Religion) or with some Protestant Churches elsewhere in disusing these observances, I shall, before I conclude this part of my designed method, tender the consideration of these few things.  
First, that it is sufficiently clear, 
The disusing of these feasts blamable.  that this observation is an undoubted part of that establishment which the Reformation in this kingdom( which alone of all others hath had the honour and reputation of being regular and discreet, in opposition to popular and tumultuous, and to be thought worthy to give, not to receive rules from other platforms) hath enacted for us. And that, that appears by Act of Parliament( as well as Church-Canon) which gave authority to the liturgy.  
Secondly, that in other Reformed, especially the Lutheran, Churches, this and other feasts of Christ are retained in their Establishments, and in some few places, where the Reformation proceeding less regularly, hath in the tumultuary hast left out, or swept it away, It is yet either by the Confessions of those Churches, or by sober members of them, approved and wished for: Of this the words of the Helvetian Confession, and not onely Bucers approbation of it in our liturgy, and the like of many others in those times, but also the express words of the famous du Plessis of France, complaining that they had not retained the observation of it in the French Reformation; and since him, the practise of some others, who in their weekly preachings have constantly given Christmas-day the solemnity of a Sermon( wherein the whole body of their public devotions now adays consists) are sufficicient testimonies. And much more might be added in that matter.  
Thirdly, that the razing this Festivity out of the Calendar of the Church, or the encouraging those that do so, in laying down or disusing the observation of it, is an act of Division and Separation( in the former, and compliance with Division and Separation in the latter) from the particular Church of England, and from the universal Church of Christ in all ages, especially that of the first, and the purest times.  
Fourthly, that the present complexion of these times doth no way invite the laying aside this Usage, or render it excusable in them which have disused it; It being for the ignoranter fort a little too visible, that the omission of the Christmas Sermons and Services, doth tend to raze out of their mindes that slender knowledge, which they have gathered of the birth of Christ, and the consequent mysteries of our Religion, and, by gratifying their worldly affections, doth much assist Atheism or blindness, in the hope and attempt of supplanting all Christian knowledge among many. And it being with great reason affirmed by the Casuists, that the necessaries of belief, for the most vulgar sort, are no more then the great holidays of the year,( the services of which keep the ignorance of them from being excusable in any) This ejecting all those holidays out of the Christian Church( being, as it is, superadded to the difusing of the Creeds and Catechism) will probably, if God please not to avert, soon dispatch all opinion of any necessity of believing any of those Articles, and in time, where the Ministers care of setting apart other dayes for the preaching of those truths, doth not help to supply the defect in some degree,( for by long discourses wholly to supply it, it is not to be hoped) it will be the supplanting of the foundation itself, and so at last the intercepting of all( the most superficial) knowledge of the first elements of our Christianity.  
As for those of deeper knowledge, who less seem to want such helps, yet is their general impatience of sound doctrine, their readiness to embrace whatever is novel, and contrary to the ancient Faith and Principles, become now so grossly apparent, and the practise of Christian Precepts, especially of hospitality and charity, so scandalously out-dated, that it is but needful to take the gardiners course, and dig to the roots of Christianity, to lay it open and bare, if ever we expect it should recover from barrenness, and flourish in more verdure, then of late it hath done.  
Lastly( to lay aside all that may be disputable, or possible not to be assented to by any) I desire it may be considered sadly, Whether the abolition of that solemnity, which hath no other design, but to teach us what we have received from God in Christ, and to assist us to render God a pious public acknowledgement of it at some set time( which without such provision is sure to be neglected by many) be the fittest discharge of our charity to the souls of ignorant seducible men, or whether they can truly receive comfort from having yielded an assistance, or compliance to the removing it out of this Church.  
If to all this be opposed the fear and danger of a threefold guilt in the continuing of this observance, the first of Will-worship, because this is not commanded in Scripture; the second, of Superstition in observing dayes; the third, of Riot and Excess, which is frequently observable in such Festivals: Then as to the two former of these, I have given a large answer in 
Treat. of Willworsh. and of Superstit. and Pract. Cat. l. 2. §. 12.  another place, so to the third I shall now enlarge what was there but briefly touched, conceiving it a matter of great importance, that so pious a custom should be clearly vindicated from so impious an appendage, and that this discourse, which is sincerely designed to the advantage and welfare of all, should not be to any an occasion of falling.  
And first, I freely aclowledge, that all riot and excess is a sin, 
The riot of which these Festivals are accused.  and that far greater and more punishable in a Christian, then in any man else, particularly then in the Jew, whose promises of an earthly plenty are not so contrary and irreconcilable with corporal excess, as are the spiritual joys that are the Christians eminent( if not onely) portion under promise, both in this and in another life.  
But then secondly, Festivity and Hospitality is very separable from riot, or luxury, in a Christian Commonwealth; The heathen feasts and sacrifices had little else in them, gluttony and drunkenness being the prescribed worship, and way of approving themselves to( and of pleasing or serving) some of their Idol-gods, and uncleanness being the design of others, if not openly in their Temples, yet more closely in their recesses and mysteries, their {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, and so both sorts recommended to them under an opinion of Piety and Religion. But the Christian Festival being wholly made up of spiritual dainties, in receiving Christian instruction, offering Prayers and Thanksgivings and Alms, and not feeding corporally, save in the Sacrament onely( where I hope no excess hath ever been observable in this Nation) is thus far free from having any degree of luxury, intrinsical to it, or inseparable from it.  
As for the customary hospitality or good cheer of those seasons( besides that at other times there hath been, by those who have laid down this custom, as great liberty used in feasting, since their departure from the Church, as ever they used before in time of Christmas, which argues the good cheer not to be the thing disliked, but the Christian occasion or season of it) First, it must be acknowledged that that is not any other then a decent attendant on that, as on any, Festivity,( not of the essence or substance of it) And then what reason can be assigned why it should not be lawful thus outwardly to express Christian joy by some change of Clothes or Diet, from that which is ordinary at other times, to that which is as ordinary at festivities? {αβγδ}, saith Greg. Nyssen of Easter, The ploughman dresses himself in a festival guise, and, {αβγδ}, the poor man putteth himself in the rich mans attire, and the rich man {αβγδ} sets himself out in lustre above ordinary. And S. jerome saith of those that mourned for their friends, that at Easter they laid aside their mourning garments, and put on their most rich apparel. And secondly, why should it not be most lawful to bless, and praise, and give thanks to God( after the manner of all men, Jews and Gentiles, who always had feasts annexed to their Sacrifices) and to express and demonstrate that, in the enjoyment, and by the acknowledgement of his temporal goodness, so it be done with that one great necessary caution, and reservation of sobriety and thanksgiving, and this more at such a time of commemorating some special mercy received from God, then at another, and especially to take care that the season of acknowledging an eminent mercy of God, be also a remembrancer of the exercise of that eminent Christian duty of Hospitality, and Charity to the poor, and again of a cheerful liberal reception of friends and neighbors, to nourish or breed Christian acquaintances and correspondencies, and add to the comfort of life by the society, and quiet converse of those others our equals, which stand in need of our examples of Piety and Christian commerce, though they want not the supplies of our bread? And accordingly the Fathers speak of a rejoicing, which they call {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, earthy and worldly, as well as of another, which they call {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, spiritual and divine, and think that one is very reconcilable with the other.  
But then thirdly, if such plenty be not by experience found( among the generality of the kingdom) to be used and enjoyed without sin( though as long as there is flesh in the world, unreformed by Christianity, this need not be looked on as any strange thing, or the cure of it undertaken by that new Empirical way of applying the remedy to the weapon, not to the Patient, yet) rather then the faults of this attendant and accessary should be charged to the destroying of the Principal, and rather then the external part should have the fate to devour the inward and more excellent, and when it shall appear really that the excesses and vices of men, occasioned merely by the Christmas-cheer and sports, are more considerable to the debauching and ruining of souls, then the forementioned uses are beneficial to the improving of them, I shall then profess to believe, that there is place and season for Reformation in this particular, this accessary, this external part, that attends on this Christian festivity; and that it is more then time, that the greatest severities be used to that end, that the excesses of men being so impudently irrational, as to assault and pollute that which is most sacred, be also cured by irrational applications, by imposed, and forced abstinencies, that they be discouraged and branded by this Character, that the beasts physic was found necessary to this bestial disease, the virtue of temperance thought fit to be taught them by a prescribed impossibility of intemperance.  
But then still this penance which is due to the guilty, is not due( but impertinent) to the innocent, belongs onely to the wicked, as Abraham  told God, and not to the righteous, to the carnal, not the spiritual, to the eating, not to the praying and praising part of the festivity( As in the ancient Church when on dayes of festivities men began to adorn themselves sumptuously to show their pride, not to honour the day, and fared deliciously to surfeiting and drunkenness, the Fathers did not thereupon forbid what before they allowed, but sought to reduce them from that pride and luxury, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, I do not forbid the festivity, but reprehend the immoderation, saith Greg. nazianzen) And so if it must come under the discipline, it will not be necessary, I hope, that the discipline be more severe, then the utmost of the Primitive sharpest Censures were, that if it must be delivered up to Satan, it be no farther then for the destruction of the flesh, of the riotous, outward part of it, so as may be reconcilable with the saving of the spirit, that hath deserved no wrath, the preserving of the inward more spiritual part( the soul as it were) of the festivity.  
Mean-while it is clear, that the Church-part of the festivity is not supposed guilty in this kind, and therefore can in no justice be found liable to the intemperance of the Parlour, whatsoever that be supposed to be: And for the other, the eating and sporting part, against which all the charge must be laid, that need not be abolished neither, save onely in case of great and general abuses. And that case will not be pleadable, till first, upon endeavour to reform, it appear, that there is no place of remedy for the abuses, no imaginable means of rescuing a laudable custom from an impious appendage( and then truly I know not to what purpose are Laws, and defigns of Reformation, if the Mattock must do all the work, the Pruning-hook is become unuseful) and Secondly, till the abuses are not onely so great, as discernible to out-ballance the good uses, but also so general, that( as in the business of the brazen Serpent) the whole Church in a manner runs madding into these very great abuses.  
Whereas indeed the utmost that can, without great want of charity, be pretended by any in this matter of christmas, is onely this, that they which are loosely or lasciviously disposed, do turn this feasting into luxury and excess; and so, I believe, the same men will be observed to do the Lords-day also, when yet they have not the temptations of a feast, but onely the advantages of a rest to recommend it to( or excuse it in) them; while those that are not so ill, and yet none of the best, make it but a time of refreshment from their ordinary labour and travail in their Callings: But on the other side, those that are Christianly disposed make use even of the most external, grosser part of it to special spiritual advantages, to the glory of God, and comfort of their souls, Christian Conversation, pious discourse, commerce of souls, charity, hospitality, and the like.  
But then lastly I add, after all this complaint of great and general abuses, revellings, &c. that if we look no farther then this kingdom of ours, wherein they are thus severely visited, the charge appears to be most unjust. For the day of the birth of Christ, Christ-mass day itself, hath never, that I heard of, been observed among us to be guilty of these, but on the contrary hath been kept( if not much more) certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year, in frequenting the services of the Church, in the use of the Liturgy, Sermon, Sacrament of the Lords supper, in keeping at home every man and woman in their own family, and not touching either Cards or Dice that day. The excesses which have been observed, have been on the dayes after the Nativity; and yet I suppose every Christian house-keeper may with ordinary diligence so regulate his hospitality and the sports which he permits in his family, at those times also, that they may tend to no worse end, then the increase of Christian charity, and kindness among neighbours all the year after.  
And so still this( and that really the most considerable) prejudice, taken from the riots occasioned by this festivity, is proved of small validity against any( even the grosser) part of it, and of none at all against the Festivity itself. But yet may reasonably be made use of, as an enforcement of that Exhortation of S. Augustine, 
Dom. 1, adv.  Quotiescunque natalem Domini, &c. celebrare disponitis, ebrietatem ante omnia fugite, Whensoever ye prepare to celebrate the day of Christs birth, beyond all things avoid drunkenness. And this is the duty of the Ministers to the people, and of all sorts of Governors to the whole Nation, to exhort and persuade all men, that they would not permit the abolition of this Festival to remain an instance of their bestiality to posterity, that they would pay that as a tribute to piety, which severity of Laws may otherwise rend from them, and rather choose to adorn a Christian feast with a Christian temperance,( which then is most such, when there are advantages and temptations to the contrary) then impiously to defame a pious usage, and bring vengeance upon it by an impertinent Bestial inordinacy.  
To which purpose is that of Greg. nazianzen, Or. in penned. {αβγδ}, The Jew feasteth, but according to the letter; the Greek feasts, but according to the body, celebrating his own Gods and Daemons; we also feast, but so as it seems good to the Spirit. And of Theodoret, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, Therapeut. 9. In stead of the old pomps, and unclean practices and discourses, the Christians keep sober feasts, without gluttony, drunkenness, laughter, but in stead thereof have divine hymns, the hearing of the holy Oracles, and Prayer adorned with tears, fit for so holy solemnities. And if this importunity may prove successful, this exception will then be thoroughly answered, if it be not already, and be as far from true, as it is now from argumentative.  
Having thus far enlarged on this first Consideration, addressed peculiarly as to a member of the Church of England, not yet broken off from that body, wherein he received his baptism, It will not be now unseasonable to consider him as a son of the Universal Christian Church of the whole world, and for his satisfaction, as he is such, to show him-in brief, what Authority it is by which the Festivals in general, and particularly this of the Nativity of Christ, pretend to stand, in the catholic Church. And I shall do it by these steps and degrees.  
First, by acknowledging, that it is not pretended to have its beginning from any Institution of Christs, 
festivals not instituted by Christ.  whilst he h●re continued upon the earth, but either of the Apostles, or the succeeding Church; It being very reasonable, that those which acknowledged the receipt of so wonderful a mercy from God as was the gift of his Son, and whose hearts were ravished with a sense of the advantages and benefits of it, should desire to celebrate the remembrance of it, and offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ, and that their Piety should not restrain itself within those narrower bounds of doing nothing in the service, and to the honor of Christ, but what was distinctly prescribed, and particularly instituted by him.  
Thus among the Jews the feast of the Dedication of the Altar, 
The {αβγδ}.  not that of the building of the Temple by Solomon, which was celebrated in the month Tisri, nor that other of repairing of it by Zorobabel, which was kept in the month Adar, but a third, in memory of the purging of it by Judas Maccabaeus, observed in Casleu, and so not mentioned in the Canon of the Old Testament, or instituted by God himself, but by the Jews, 1 Mac. 4.59. was yet observed, and the observation of it approved and confirmed by Christs presence at that feast, Joh. 10.23.  
To these I might add the festivities at Marriage, 
Marriage feasts.  never instituted by God, as far as we can discern, in the Old Testament, and yet observed by the Jews, judge. 14.10, 11. by the space of seven dayes, and before them by Bethuel in Mesopotamia, Gen. 24. for the space of ten dayes( as seems to be the importance of v. 55.) and by Laban in Padan Aram, for the space of seven, Gen. 29.22.( in like manner as among the grecians, {αβγδ}, 'twas law or custom to have feasts at marriages, saith Athenaeus Deipn. l. 4. and Plutarch gives the reasons of it, Sympos. 4. qu. 4.) And yet these are so far from being disliked by Christ, that they are honourably mentioned by him in his parables, and vouchsafed his presence and first miracle, Joh. 2.  
But it is more pertinent to our present purpose that it be remembered, 
The Lords d●y.  that the weekly feast of the Resurrection of Christ was not instituted by Christ or God himself, but by the Apostles of Christ, and that the mentions of the first day of the week, which we have in the New Testament, are no prescriptions or law for the observing of it, but that, if any thing of that nature be there sought for, it will rather appear to belong to the Annual then weekly feasts. 
Easter-day.  So 1 Cor. 5.8. {αβγδ}, Let us keep the Paschal festivity, is annexed immediately to Christ our Passover, his having been slain( and now risen again) for us, and to that also the {αβγδ} or Lords day, once mentioned Rev. 1.10. is thought to belong; And indeed of the institution of that yearly feast by the Apostles, the evidences are clear in the ancient Church, the differences between the Eastern and Western, concerning the time of keeping it, pretending to one Apostle on one side, who kept it according to the Jews account, to other Apostles on the other side, who went by another rule.  
Secondly, then for festival dayes in general now under the New Testament, 
Christian festivals.  if for not being instituted in Scripture, they be deemed universally unlawful, the Account will be clear, First, that Aerius, the first that affirmed that, was for so doing censured, and for that and other things turned out of the Church for an heretic( Epiphanius Haer. 75.) Secondly, that the unreasonableness of that pretention will be judged of by this one evidence, of the Festivities of the Martyrs, 
The Martyrs {αβγδ}.  the dayes of whose deaths were remembered by the Church, under the title of {αβγδ} Natalitia, or birth-dayes, and S. Stephens day( who being the Captain of them, that day comprised all others of that rank) placed next in the Calendar to the Nativity of Christ, and celebrated as cheerfully as Pharaohs birth-day in the Old Testament, at Herods in the New, and the Emperors in human Authors.  
Of these we have an early Record of Primitive Antiquity, in the letter of the Church of Smyrna, 
The Testimony of the Church of Smyrna for festivals.  on occasion of Polycarps martyrdom, where having set down the story of it, his {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, combat and consummation, they conclude with their hope and wish, {αβγδ}, that God will now permit them to meet together, with exultation and joy to celebrate the birth-day of his martyrdom. And that this is no entrenchment or diminution to the worship and adoration due unto Christ, they show their opinion there; for having said before, that they worship none but Christ onely, they add, {αβγδ}, Let us bestow that love upon the Martyrs, which is due to them, as the disciples, and imitators of the Lord. This Testimony being so near the Apostles times, sets a sacred character on those Commemorations( summed up by the Church into that one of the first-fruits, S. Stephen, in whom the whole heap of the following harvest, this Polycarpe, and all others are included) as such as were in use before the writing of that Letter, and then there will be no reason to doubt, or need to produce more Testimonies to avouch, that, as Polycarpes day of martyrdom was celebrated by that Church of which he was Bishop, so the dayes of the death or martyrdom of the Apostles themselves, the Universal Bishops of the whole Church, were formerly solemnized by them, and that thus early, so as that Church of Smyrna might transcribe that custom from them, it being not imaginable that Polycarpe should have a solemnity assigned him, and the Apostles of Christ, whose copy he but transcribed, be denied that honour.  
Agreeable to this, is that known practise of the first antiquity to assemble at the Monuments of Martyrs, 
The assemblies at the monuments of Martyrs.  before Churches were built, and from such meetings most of the ancient Churches in the world had their beginnings. And( not to enlarge on so known a Theme) 'tis not onely the affirmation of Gregory Nyssen in the life of Thaumaturgus, that he brought up all his Converts to celebrate the birthdayes of the Martyrs; and of S. Cyprian, that he used to celebrate their Passions with an anniversary Commemoration, but Tertullian, one of the best Repositories of the practices of the Primitive Church, saith that Christians were wont to celebrate yearly the dayes of the Martyrs birth, i.e. their sufferings, ex majorum traditione, received it from the tradition of their Antecessors, de Cor. mill. c. 3. All which doth clearly vindicate and give authority( such as no Christian may despise) to all the festival observations of Saints dayes, which have been in our Calendar observed, and by our Laws, since the Reformation, continued in our Church, and so without descending more particularly, applies this whole discourse unto them.  
But then thirdly, for this one feast of the birth of Christ( in which our concernments are so great, 
The feast of Christs Nativity.  that 
Hom. 6. de Nat.  lo could truly say, Dum Servatoris nostri recolimus exortum, invenimur nos nostrum celebrare Principium; Generatio enim Christi, est origo populi Christiani,& natalis capitis est natalis corporis, The Generation of Christ is the beginning of the Church, the birth day of the head is the birth day of the body) we have b elsewhere produced many Testimonies out of Origen, 
Pract Cat. 180.  Cyprian and Chrysostome, each of them deducing it from the practise of the first Antiquity; and S. Augustine making it a character of a son of the Church, to solemnize the festivals of it, and this( principally and by name) of the Nativity. To which may be added that of the c Author of the Constitutions, 
Constit. l. 5. c. 13.  {αβγδ}, Keep the dayes of the feasts, and first the day of Christs birth. And although 
{αβγδ}, ●. 27. c. 28.  Nicephorus a later Historian say, that Justinus the Emperor first commanded it to be kept festival over the world( as Justinian, saith he, appointed the day of Purification, under the name of {αβγδ}, because Simeon, &c. met Christs parents in the Temple that day) yet that belonging onely to the Edict of the Emperor for the universal observation, doth no way prejudge the Churches, whether Apostolical or Primitive, Institution of it. For long before them in Diocletians time, the observation of it is sufficiently known and solemnized in story by the 20000 Christians which were burnt by him on Christmas-day.  
Fourthly, for the particular day, whereon this feast is wont to begin, though that be not of any importance to the Institution itself, yet there is little reason to doubt of the truth of our calculation which sets it on the 25th of December 
The 25 of D●cember. ( That argument drawn by some from the courses of the Priests, is in a little Tract entitled [ Christs birth not mistimed] evidently demonstrated by a very 
Mr. I. P.  worthy and ingenuous person, to be a mere deceit.) And( to pass by the many Testimonies 
●ract. C●t. p. 179.  elsewhere produced to this purpose) In Joseph the Aegyptian's arabic Codex of the councils( a Manuscript in the Archives of the public Library of the University of Oxford, of the gift of Sir Thomas row) this day as well as this feast, is affirmed to stand by Apostolical Canon. The words of the Canon, as it is transcribed by Mr. Gregory, are in English these, Also that you constitute an anniversary feast at the Nativity of the Lord Christ, on the day on which he was born, and that was the five and twentieth of the first Canun( i.e. of December) for this is the Principal of all the feasts. Also that ye do every year celebrate the baptism of the Lard Christ upon the day in which he was baptized by John his brodomos( {αβγδ}) or forerunner, and that was the sixth day of the second Canun, i.e. of January.  
Of this Canon these things are to be observed, 
The apostolical Can●ns.  First, that although it be not affirmed that this was made by the twelve Apostles, principally so called, yet if it were framed by those that early succeeded the Apostles in governing the Church, the first Bishops of the Church( called Apostles also, by communication of that ti●le) and Apostolical men( and so 'tis probable they were first entitled {αβγδ}, Canons of Apostolical men) it may truly be styled an Apostolical Canon; Or if it were one of those which in succeeding times were added and put in to that volume, yet is this an argument of the great antiquity thereof.  
Sec●ndly, that in this Canon not onely this anniversary feast of Christs Nativity is commanded to be observed, 
Christmas day.  but also the very day defined, on which he was born, that which we now celebrate, Decemb. 25.  
Thirdly, that together with that day which begins the solemnity, at the same time, and by the same Authority, the sixth of January, which we call Twelf-day, 
twelve day.  and which ends that solemnity, and, according to the custom of the Jews( which kept the first and the last day of every feast, dayes of solemn assembly, and so {αβγδ}, great dayes) is a special holiday, was instituted also, and so that feast consisted of all the twelve dayes.  
Fourthly, that this twelfth day was observed as the day of Christs baptism 
The day of Christs baptism.  by John, at which time the holy Ghost appeared and lighted upon him, Mat. 3.16. That that day was called Epiphany, 
Epiphany.  from the appearing of the Star to the Magi, Mat. 2.2. is ordinarily conceived, and it may possibly be so, so that we do not from thence believe, that the Magi came to Christ the twelfth day after his birth, for this for many reasons seems to be a mistake; for immediately upon the departure of the Magi, 
The time of the Magi coming to Christ.  {αβγδ}, Mat. 2.13. Joseph and Mary, with the young child, fled into egypt, according to order from God, v. 14. and yet the Text saith, Luk. 2.22. that at the time of Maries purification, forty dayes after his birth, they went up from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, and therefore the coming of the wise men must needs be after their return from Jerusalem again to Bethlehem: as for that of his returning to Nazareth, Luk. 2.39. that sure refers to the time of his coming out of egypt, Mat. 2.22. and cannot be imagined before his journey thither, which appears to have been taken from Bethlehem. This, together with the length of the journey from their country, through both the Arabia's to Judaea, renders it no improbable conjecture, that their coming to Bethlehem was a twelvemonth after Christs birth; To which it is consonant which we read of Herods Edict, having from the wise men exact intelligence of the time, he appointed the killing of all the children, from two years old and under, v. 16. That this day was also the day of the baptism of Christ, though many years after, is farther affirmed by Alcas Cyriacus( an arabic MS. of Astronomical Tables in the Archbishops Archives in the Oxford Library) who calls the sixth of January the feast of the Epiphany, 
●8  or benediction of Waters, and so do others also. And accordingly the Church of England hath appointed the first Lesson to be of the Mission of the Baptist, Isa. 40. and the second Lesson to end with the baptism of Christ, Luk. 3.23.  
That the benediction of the Waters denoteth the day of Christs baptism, 
The name Epiphany.  whereby he is, by Chrysostome and other of the Ancients, affirmed to sanctify the waters, there is no place of question, but whether that day were called Epiphany from thence, in respect of the visible opening of the heavens, and descending of the holy Ghost upon him, or from the first appearing of the Star in the East to the Magi, Mat. 2.2. which well might be, on the very twelfth day after Christs birth, or from that other appearing of the same Star, when they drew toward the end of their long journey from their country to Bethlehem, v. 9. at that time twelvemonth, or whether the word signify no more then the birth of Christ, which is ordinarily called {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ} in the plural( {αβγδ}, &c. on the day of Ephany, when Christ was born-in the flesh, 
In fine l. 3.  saith Epiphanius) and may be applied to the last, as well as the first day of the feast, I shall not now define, but aclowledge myself inclined to the last, upon this one score, because many Orthodox Christians in egypt are by Epiphanius affirmed to keep the feast of the Nativity on that day: which as it is confuted by S. jerome on Ezek. c. 1. so might well have its rise from the aequivocalness of that word Epiphany, which as it signifies any kind of appearing, and so that to the Magi, the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles, so it may be the appearing of Christ first in the world, of which S. Paul affirmeth, and saith, that the salvifick grace of God {αβγδ} hath appeared, Tit. 2.11.  
So Sahid Aben Bat●ic( a MS. arabic Historian in the Archives of the public Library of the University of Cambridge) as he is transcribed by Mr. Gregory, in the life of Constantine affirmeth it in these words, Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ was born upon the twenty fifth of the first Canun, i.e. of December, and upon the eleventh day of Tybi, i.e. the sixth of the second Canun, i.e. January was the Epiphany or Baptism of Christ. So the egyptian Calendar in Kircker de Comput. Eccles. Copt. c. 3. And so Joannes Antiochenus or Melala, that Christ was born {αβγδ} upon the five and twentieth of December, but was baptized in Jordan a river of Palestine {αβγδ}, on the sixth of the month Audine, or January.  
So in the forecited Author of the Constitutions, {αβγδ}, Constit. l. 5. c. 13. Let the nativity be celebrated on the 25th day of the ninth month, beginning the year in March, when he was conceived. So in the 93 Question under the name of Athanasius Nicaenas, 'tis cited out of the {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, Our Lord was born the 25th of the egyptian month Choeac, which is eight dayes before the Calends of January, and so the 25th of December.  
But this is put beyond all question by what hath 
Pract. Cat. p. 178. The Censual Rolls of Augustus.  elsewhere been cited out of Chrysostome, and by him produced out of the Censual Tables of Augustus, i.e. those Registers of all that were enrolled by Augustus's Decree, Luk. 2.1. together with the place, and day of the month, and year wherein it was done. That enrolment or {αβγδ} or Census was, we know, the sole occasion of bringing up Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and while they were there on that occasion, the dayes were accomplished that she should be delivered, and shee brought forth her first born, v. 6, 7. To these Tables therefore Justin Martyr makes his resort, Apol. 2. for the evidencing the place of Christs birth, and doth it to the Emperors of Rome, who would easily have been able to disprove him, if it had not been so, {αβγδ}; as you may learn out of our Rolls. And so Tertullian, 
Cont. Mar. l. 14. c. 19.  Censum Augusti fidelissimum testem Dominicae Nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt, The Roman Archives preserve Augustus Censual Roll, a most faithful witness of the birth of Christ. And from these Rolls S. Chrysostome professes to have it, that this was the day of his birth, 
Hom. in Nat. ad Pop. Ant.  {αβγδ}, We have received the day from those that accurately knew these things, and which dwell in the city of Rome. And accordingly 'tis known, that before S. Chrysostomes times this day had been observed at Rome by the Christians there, 
Ib.  {αβγδ}, saith he, from their Antecessors, and from ancient Tradition.  
Having past through all the degrees and steps, wherein the observation or this Festival can be concerned, and whereby it is vindicated to that veneration which it hath had so long in the Universal Church,( and by the way the other Festivals of the Church deduced from the first times, especially by that Testimony of the Church of Smyrna, delivered by them within few years after Christs Epistle was sent to them in the Revelation) there is no more needful to be added on this Theme, but the Conclusion, 
The Conclusion.  which is obvious and evident from all this, That the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivals of the Church Universal, the Great dayes and times set apart for the commemorating the several parts of our Redemption wrought by Christ( in his birth, and the attendants on that, in his Death, and Resurrection, and Ascension, and Mission of his Spirit) and also the lives and deaths, faith and patience of his holy Martyrs, Apostles, and the whole society of the Saints( who by their examples and doctrine have contributed so much to our highest advantages, and being dead, do by this means yet speak unto us) must certainly be looked on by every man, as an act of affencted departure from the Universal Church of Christ in all ages, and not onely from the Mother which brought him forth in the faith, the Reformed Church of England. And this will set no excellent character on that which can have nothing but the novelty and contempt of Antiquity, to recommend it to any; nor will it prove any very good omen or ground of hope, that the despising of these observances will ever bring in more honour to God, and benefit to the Church, then the Institution or Usage of them was by our pious Predecessors designed to do.  
And here I must not be so injurious to the Author of the Sixteen Quaeres, touching the rise and observation of Christmas, 
An Answer to sixteen Quaeres about Christmas.  as to leave him any temptation of overvaluing his own dexterities, or thinking his attempts prosperous and victorious over the whole Church of God for so many Centuries, or of continuing his uncharitable conceit of all those, who have retained this feast in their Calendar, as of men, that, beside the guilt of befooling and misleading the people, are, saith he, utterly unable to give any rational account of their practise.  
To his Quaeres therefore, though I now hear that others have applied those Antidotes, which might make this of mine unnecessary, yet I shall give a particular Answer in few words, without repeating unnecessarily what hath more largely been said elsewhere, and in this foregoing discourse.  
To the first [ Whether such religious customs, as are binding to all the Churches of Jesus Christ, ought not to have sure footing upon the word of God, or Apostolical practise?] I say, that there is no necessity that every religious custom( as that signifies no more then the performing of those duties to God on one set day, which are in every particular justifiable and pious, whensoever they are performed) which is binding to all the Churches of Jesus Christ( by the obligation that lieth on every one to continue in Unity with the Universal Church of the purest times, and to observe their pious Institutions) should be better founded then so, or be obliged to have any other sure footing upon the word of God, or Apostolical practise. The Primitive Universal Church of Christ may( and among all pious Christians hath alway been allowed to) have authority sufficient to prescribe and institute such a rite, as this hath appeared to be, and that Institution to deserve obedience from all meek sons of the Church, who have no reason to break her unity, or lose their parts of the benefits, which are consequent to that, upon such untempting, gainless terms as those.  
To the second[ Whether I can substantially prove that Christ was born on the 25th of December, and what my proofs are?] I answer, that it may be as substantially proved, as of a fact so long distant from us can well be expected( and as to the business in hand[ the celebrating an anniversary day] may be sufficient) that Christ was born on the 25th of December: And what the proofs are; hath been set down,§. 36, &c.  
To the third [ Whether the celebration of that day,( grant he was born on it) can be clearly warranted from Scripture, and what those Scriptures are?] That if by[ the clear warranting the celebration of a day] be meant, as the words import, the securing one's self or others, that the celebration of that day is no way unlawful, neither prohibited by, nor contrariant to Scripture, then it is clearly warranted, and that the warrant hath been cleared by the several stages of the precedent discourse, beginning§. 28, &c. And that such warrant as that is abundantly sufficient to justify that practise, which the Church in the best and purest times hath on such pious and prudent grounds universally practised.  
To the fourth [ Whether I can clear it by sound consequence from the New Testament, though not set down there in totidem verbis?] That I can clear the warrantableness of the celebration, and perfect lawfulness to continue it, from the no-objection that lies in force against it, and add unto that the Piety of the Institution, the Authority of the Institutors, the advantages that may be made of it by all good Christians, and that is as sound a consequence from the New Testament, as this matter can stand in need of.  
To the fifth [ Whether I can do it by universal Tradition?] That what I undertake to assert, viz. the blamelesness of this Institution in it sel●, and the truth of fact concerning the Churches Institution, yea and the usage and continuance of it through all times, hath been already competently evidenced, and may farther, by Tradition so Universal, that none but Aerius for very many hundred years, was known to contradict it, and he hath been ranked by the Fathers of the Church among heretics for so doing.  
To the sixth [ Whether( in case it can be evidenced by none of these, viz. plain Text, solid Inference, Universal Tradition) it be not a mere human invention, and so will-worship? and how we will one day acquit ourselves before God, for placing and crying up mens inventions, in stead of the Institutions of Jesus Christ? And whether it were not faithful dealing with poor simplo people, to tell them that we have neither of these to warrant it?] That it matters little what it should be, if it were warranted by none of these, seeing it doth appear by the former answers, as far as to the matter is sufficient, warranted by all of them. And moreover, that a human invention, such it may be, an Institution of the Pure virgin Apostolical Church of Christ, and so propounded( not for a doctrine of God's, but an Ecc●esiastical Institution) may be very far from having any hurt in it: No act of will-worship, as that signifies a voluntary service piously performed to God, or an uncommanded act of Piety, being, eo nomine, a sin, but an act of Christian virtue, as hath been shewed at large in a full Tract of will-worship, and applied to this particular purpose, Pract. Cat. p. 126. And therefore to say that we, or any, by observing this festivity, or teaching others to continue the observance of it, do place and cry up the inventions of men, in stead of the Institutions of Jesus Christ, is an unprovoked causeless calumny. And for the fidelity required to poor simplo people, we have discharged ourselves oft in our ministry, as far as that( in duty or charity, or for directing them into all truth) appears to be required of us.  
To the seventh [ Whether( since dayes and times commanded by God himself to be observed under the Law, were and are unlawful under the Gospel) dayes and times commanded by men, and not by God, under the Gospel, are not less lawful?] That the supposed unlawfulness of continuing under the Gospel, those dayes and times commanded by God to the Jews under the Law, is no prejudice against the Apostles or the Churches instituting of other dayes and times upon Christian grounds, for the use of Christians under the Gospel. The consequence is clear, by the disparity of the cases, especially if it be observed, That it was not the bare continuing or using those Jewish rites, which was deemed unlawful, but the imposing them as by law from God on those which were never subject to them, as on Gentiles converted to Christianity, who were never subject to the Jewish Law. But to this also the answer is given at large, Pract. Cat. p. 179.  
To the eighth [ Whether the true and genuine interpretation of Christmas be Christman? And whether to persuade people 'tis so, be not to delude them? And whether we may not as well interpret Candlemas, Candleman, Michaelmas, Michaelman, as Christmas, Christman?] That the genuine interpretation of Christmas is not Christman, and that to persuade the people 'tis so, or to persuade the Author of the Quaeres that any man that understands words, can think it possible it should be so, is to abuse and delude both them and him; And any man might as reasonably tell him, that Candlemas and Michaelmas signified the Candle and the Angel to be men, as that that was the notation of the word Christmas. And indeed, it is but my duty to be sorry for any, that should challenge all men with so much confidence, and yet at the same time be capable of having such a trope put upon him as this was.  
For whose satisfaction in this point, it will not be amiss to add what I conceive concerning the notation of the word, that the old Saxon word maessan, 
Mass.  and from thence the English mess, and mass, signifies a feast, and accordingly with them, any holy or festival day, is called maessan daeg, Mass day: And so, saith Varro, doth the Greek {αβγδ}, and the latin Messa, from whence the common word Mensa is but lightly removed, and signifies the meat, and not the table onely(— mensaeque remotae in Virgil, the meat taken away, and mensae secundae, the second course) and all this from the latin Missa, because ad mensam mittitur, it is sent, or served up to the table. And this is perfectly agreeable also to the Greeks use of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, in their libations and sacrifices, {αβγδ}, I sand, i.e. offer this unto thee, and from thence is their {αβγδ} or pompa, for ferculum, a mess, or service,( so in Pliny, Nat. hist. l. 7. c. 23. Crispum Hilacum cum filiis novem— praelatâ pompâ in Capitolio immolasse) as this is accommodated to the Christians Worship, or spiritual feast, among the Fathers, so {αβγδ}, in Justin Martyr, p. 60. {αβγδ}, to sand up praises and prayers, i.e. pomps and missa's to God. And this again agreeable to the known origination of the Hebrew {αβγδ} a table, from {αβγδ} misit. And then it remains, that the word in composition must follow the notation of it in the simplo, and own no other signification, then that Christmas be the feast of Christ, Michaelmas the feast of Michael the Archangel, as it is commonly explicated.  
To the ninth [ Whether the Saints are bound to rejoice in the birth of Christ on that day that men superstitiously call Christmas, more then at other times? And whether the Lords day be not[ the] day appointed for them to rejoice on?] That the Institution and usage of the Universal Church of God for so many hundred years, is an obligation to all faithful sons of that Church( if that be the meaning of the word Saints) to rejoice in( as that signifies to commemorate with joy and thanksgiving to God the Father) the birth of Christ on that day, which is far from being 
From the charge of superstition this observation of Christmas, is at large vindicated, Pract. Cat. p. 177.  superstitiously( it might as properly have been termed murtherously, and feloniously, and adulterously) called Christmas, more then the same Church, or any other Authority equal to that, obliges to do at any other set time. And though the Lords day be by the same Authority appointed for Saints to rejoice on, yet that was in reflection on the Resurrection, not Birth of Christ on that day; And besides, that excludes not other seasons of rejoicing, any more then the mercy of Christs Resurrection, either concludes Christ never to have been born, or that birth not to be a mercy worthy of a Christians rejoicing.  
For the enforcing of this Objection, it hath been farther said by others, that the Resurrection of Christ comprehendeth the birth under it, and consequently that the Lords-day-weekly feast, being the commemoration of the Resurrection, comprehends the celebration of all other antecedent mercies, that of the Nativity and Passion also. But, 1. this is a very infirm way of arguing, and if it had any force in it, would conclude against the observation of the Lords-day itself: For, doth not the Ascension of Christ as much include and comprehend the Resurrection of Christ, as his Resurrection doth his Nativity? Certainly it doth, and by that way of disputing, would infer, that the Ascension is the one onely feast to be observed, and all others to be banished out of the Church. But then secondly, it is observable of those that thus vehemently express their dislikes to commemorating of Christs birth, that their wrath is equally extended to the observation of Easter, and so can as little boast of their zeal to the Resurrection, as to the birth of Christ. But this Objection is not made use of by the Author of the Quaeres, and therefore I shall no farther enlarge to show the invalidity of it.  
To the tenth [ Whether Christmas day ought in any respect to be esteemed above another of the weekdays? And whether people may not without offence to God follow their lawful vocations on that day?] That that which the Universal Church of God hath set apart for the public service and commemoration of an eminent mercy of God, ought in that respect to be esteemed above other dayes of the year, as[ esteeming a day] signifies the [ setting it apart] and so consecrating from common to sacred uses and employments. And therefore supposing this Institution and precept of the Church, and the command of God to honour our Parents, and to submit ourselves to those who have rule over us, Heb. 13.17.( under which phrase, by {αβγδ}, the Governors of the Church are contained, if not solely meant in that place) people may not without offence to God, Schism from his Church, and culpable disobedience, separate wilfully, or withdraw from the public Assembly on that day, and follow their lawful( as that signifies ordinary, particular, or on other dayes lawful) vocations; It being most evident, that our ordinary labour, and driving our secular designs of worldly gain, hath been always looked on by God, as an inconvenient attendant of his public or solemn worship,( as God and Mammon are not easily served together) and a rest prescribed from those employments, which may render the mind unfit, or the body uncapable of that more divine attendance; which rest is farther capable of the honour of being an oblation to God, if in honour to him, we thus offer some part of our time,( which is also interpretatively some part of our wealth) unto his service.  
To the eleventh [ Whether I think the Parliament and Assembly have erred and played the fools, in condemning and razing out holidays not warranted in the Word? And whether to observe them, be not highly to dislike, and flatly to contradict( in point of practise at least) their proceedings in order to a Reformation?] That I am not so rude and unmindeful of our Saviours interdict, Mat. 5.22. as to pronounce of any society of men, or single man, that he hath played the fool; Yet I profess not to commend the turning out all holidays beside the Lords day( and particularly this of the Nativity of Christ) out of the Church, nor do I believe it a good expedient toward Reformation.  
To the twelfth [ Whether( since most men and women in England do blindly and superstitiously believe that Christ was born on that day) preaching on it doth not nourish and strengthen them in that belief?] That the believing Christ to have been born Decemb. 25. is no blind( and 'tis impossible it should be any superstitious) belief. And therefore 'tis not amiss that by any lawful means( such I hope preaching may be) men be nourished and strengthened in that belief. And yet why the preaching on Decemb. 25. should nourish people in the belief, that Christ was born that day of the month, when the preaching on March 25.( when Easter day falls on that day) doth not persuade any that Christ rose again on that day of the month, I cannot easily foresee, what account will be given; It being as little important to the celebration of a Christian feast, that the day set apart for it should be infallibly the day whereon the thing commemorated was done sixteen hundred years since, as it is necessary to the preserving the memory of William the Conqueror, that the picture of him, which I now have, was rightly and exactly taken.  
To the thirteenth [ Whether this feast had not its rise and growth from Christians conformity to the mad feasts Saturnalia( kept in December to Saturn the father of the Gods) in which there was a sheaf offered to Ceres Goddess of Corn, and a hymn in her praise, called {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}? And whether those Christians by name, to cloak it, did not afterwards call it Yule and Christmas( as though it were for Christs honour?) And whether it be not by some( more ancient, then truly or knowingly religious) called Yule, and the mad plays or Sports( wherewith 'tis celebrated, like those Saturnalia) Yule games? And whether from the offering that sheaf to Ceres, from that Song in her praise, from those gifts the heathens gave their friends on the Calends of January, ominis gratiâ, did not arise or spring our Blazes, Christmas Carols, and New-years-Gifts?] I answer to the severals, First, that a Sheaf or lesser proportion, an handful of ears of corn, was customarily offered to Ceres by the heathen Greeks, is an unquestioned truth, and might be testified by Theocritus, Eidyll. 10. and by others; So likewise it is true, that this Sheaf or handful of ears was called {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}. But that this was done in the Saturnalia, or that it hath any relation to our Yule and Carols, is a double mistake in the propounder.  
The Saturnalia were clearly a Roman feast, celebrated by them in December, and oft continued the whole month. But for Ceres Games, 
Ceres games.  they appear not to have any thing to do there, but to be of a Greek beginning, and improved into their Eleusinia Sacra, those filthy mysteries of theirs, so famous for all villainy.  
For the word {αβγδ}, 
{αβγδ}.  'tis acknowledged also, that that signified not onely the sheaf, but hymn to Ceres, so saith Athenaeus, l. 14. c. 3. out of Semius Delius, {αβγδ}, the fruits and the hymns are both called by that name. So the Greek Scholiast on 
A●gon. l. 1. v. 972.  Apollonius Rhodius, {αβγδ}, It is the name of a Song, and Hymn, saith Didymus, on Ceres. Beside this, the word {αβγδ} signifies many things; John Zetzes in his Chiliads reckons six significations of it; And yet besides those it is the name of a Paphian month,& if the English Yule be taken from thence, the most Reverend Primate of Armagh hath shewed that it will fall out commodiously enough. 
De Ann. Maced.  The {αβγδ}, which Epiphanius makes the day of our Saviours Nativity, being coincident with the fourteenth of the Cyprians( and among them of the Paphians) Julus, and so consequently the first of that month, must be on the 24th of the Roman December, the vigils of our Saviours Nativity, according to all other Calculations. But the truth is, there is not so much affinity betwixt our Northern English or Scottish( nor was there between our Antecessors British or Saxon) and either the grecians in general, or the Cypriots and Paphians in particular, as will be able to countenance or authorize this derivation, unless it may be thought that we and they both had it from some common fountain, some more universal Mother-Language.  
It is, I conceive, far more probable, that the word Yule, 
Yule.  giul, or( as in Alfreds Laws 'tis also called) geHol, should be taken immediately from the latin, Jubilum, as that signifies a time of rejoicing and festivity, and as 'tis sure enough that they have it from the Hebrew {αβγδ} jubilum, jubilatus, clangor tubae productior, the longer and louder sounding of the Trumpet, which was used to call men to Assemblies and Festivities. From thence, we know, that was their word to signify any festivity, either day or year, and belongs to their New-Moons( on which, saith the Psalmist, the Trumpet was to be blown, and upon the solemn feast dayes, whatsoever they were) and doth by no peculiarity belong to that which they call the year of Jubilee, but onely as that was a festival year, and a year of Rest, and remission( attendant on, and annexed to feasts) This is very readily changed into that, the Hebrew● or j consonant, being pronounced by most nations like y, and so is the Saxon g also, as gate is among the Northern, gate, and given is yeoven, and the Saxon gear is year, and the particle give is if. So the old Scottish that pronounce yule and year, writ gule and gure. As for the other change in the word, the softening the b, or turning it into u, nothing is more ordinary. That this is the original of Yule, may farther appear by the use of the old word gule in ancient Records, as when the first of August, Lammas, or( as in the Saxon 'tis red) Hlafmaes, lafmess, i.e. loaf mass, or bread mass( so name, as a Feast of Thanksgiving to God for the first-fruits of the corn, and seems to have been observed with bread of new Wheat, and accordingly 'tis an usage in some places for Tenants to be bound to bring in Wheat of that year to their Lord on, or before the first of August) is called gula Augusti, or the Yule of August. In the same sense both( and so is unreconcilable with the other derivations, either from {αβγδ} the hymn to Ceres, or the name of the Paphian month) save onely that the feast of Christs nativity is called the Yule, {αβγδ}, the other the Yule of August determinately: So likewise 'tis at this day ordinare in many Shires to call the annual feast or Wake, which most Parishes keep on several set dayes in commemoration of the dedication of their Church, the Yuval or Yule, which is an evidence that the word signifies Jubilum, a day of festivity, rejoicing, and no more.  
As for the Blazes, 
Blazes.  if in any part of this kingdom any such be now used at this time, I know no other beginning, or occasion of them, then that flames of fire may have been used as expressions of joy among us, as bonfires have always been. The Carols, if they be worthy of the subject, I shall presume free from that charge, as being hymns in honour of our Saviours birth, or commemorations of that part of the history in the Gospel, and no more then other divine hymns or anthems sung at a Festival by way of thanksgiving to God.  
There remains onely the custom of New-years-Gifts, 
New years gifts.  and for those I answer, that the heathens giving their friends gifts in the Calends of January, was( beside the [ ominis causa]) a part of the worship of Janus a false God, 
— Jano etiam celebri de mensae litatur  
Auspiciis epulisque sacris— saith Prudentius,  You see sacrificing to Janus, as well as auspicia. And yet what the Poet means by auspicia, is sufficiently cleared by Pliny, Faustis ominibus, bonis verbis, precationibus felicibus, strenis& muneribus, se invitabant, Hist. Nat. l. 28. c. 2. good wishes, and good abodings, gifts, and presents. And Lucian gives the reason why the Romans did this, because, saith he, they believed that the Gods answered mens prayers, {αβγδ}, on that day most especially. What was thus done by the heathens to their false Gods, or out of such ridiculous persuasions, that the Gods heard prayers more on that day then another; or if there were any other folly in it, is to another end, and separate from those follies, and with a far distant intention) continued among Christians to the true God, i.e. onely thus far.  
The Church observes this first day of the year, as the feast commemorative of the Circumcision of Christ. The sending of gifts to one another, where it is continued, is no part of the worship of God, nor, I think, mistaken by any to be so, but a civil usage among men, for the acknowledging the relations that men stand in, one toward another. And if we should imitate such moral duties, even from heathens, there would be no more hurt in it, then in learning a moral sentence out of Theognis, or Seneca. And if a prayer for the prosperity of the year following, or but the expression of that Christian wish, be an appendage of the New-Years gift, 'tis not imaginable that there should be more hurt in that gift or wish, then there is poison in the Scholars Epistle to his Governor, from the {αβγδ}, o●, to an irrational importune disputer, from an {αβγδ} at the top of it.  
And yet after all this, it may be added, that this custom hath not been of late years any thing solemnly observed in this kingdom, save onely between the Lords and the King, the Lords presenting such a sum of money, and the King returning so many ounces of Plate. And this custom is justly thought to have been brought into ours from the Roman Commonwealth( not the Roman Church) as into that by the Emperor Augustus, every one of the people being appointed to present to him a tribute on the Calends of January. So far is this from being a superstitious, or indeed a religious observance.  
And what ere the ancient Fathers have poured out in declamations against the practices on the Calends of January, appears clearly to have been aimed not against the mutual expressions of duty or kindness in the new years gifts, or new yeares wishes, but against the consecrating that day to the 
Bifrontis illâ superstitione u●untur. Ambr. in Gal. 4.  Idol Ianus, and the drunkennes●e and revellings used on it, the due ceremonies of an Idol-feast. And if mens endeavours might be like their Sermons in this, labour to purge this, and the like feasts from the profane excesses( the greatest and most dangerous remainders of Idolatry and heathenism among us) and to retain nothing, but what were agreeable to the worship of the true God, and Christian life, I should not give any man such an example of ill nature, or contentious spirit, as to dispute against them, but profess my spirit to be pleased with healing balsames, as much as my flesh abhors amputations, and to believe that purging physic may be sometimes as useful, as at other times cordials are acknowledged to be.  
To the fourteenth [ Whether conformity to, and retention of heathenish customs be commendable in Christians, suitable or agreeable with Gospel-principles, though under pretext of Christ's honour and worship?] That conformity to, or retention of some customs of civil life, used formerly by thē nation, whilst it was heathen, as paying tributes, homages, interchanging hospitalities or civilities, yea and wishing good health or prosperity( good even, good morrow, good day, good year, good speed good do it you) are not unsuteable, or disagreeable with Gospel principles, especially if they either not pretend at all to be acts of worship, or pretending to be such be really( what they pretend to) designed, to the honour of Christ who was given us by God as a mercy of such a weight, as may well constrain us to do any thing that is pious, charitable, or kind on occasion of that commemoration. Secondly, that tis known of Christ and his Apostles, that they did, to attract the Iewes to the Christian Religion, gratify them in retaining many of their customs, So they were not such as had a peculiarity of opposition, and unreconcileablenesse with the Gospel. And therefore for any innocent customs of the heathens, such, as having nothing of idolatry in them, might be accommodated to the Christian purposes, there is nothing to be charged upon those that planted Christianity among the Gentiles, if to so pious an end, as was the attracting of the heathens to Christ, they did so accommodate them.  
To the fifteenth [ Whether I am not bound to prove my practise for the conviction and satisfaction of my brethren, whose duty it is to walk with me in things agreeable to the mind of Christ? And in case I cannot, whether I ought not to aclowledge my error, lay down my practise( as others have done theirs) no longer befooling and misleading the people committed to my charge?] First, That I have in obedience to this admonition endeavoured to prove and justify my practise, and the practise of the Church of England, not yet unbeautifull in her ruins, for the conviction or satisfaction of my brethren; and can persuade myself cheerfully that all that live in obedience to our persecuted Mother, or to the Universal Church of the purest ages, and are content to allow me the title of one of their brethren, will rest in some degree satisfied with this account, whose duty that it is to walk with me in things agreeable to the mind of Christ, I shall willingly aclowledge, and therefore hope, they will not think themselves obliged to separate at once from me, and the Church of England( that I say not the Apostolical, Primitive, Universal Church of God) in that; which is thus far cleared from being disagreeable to any thing revealed by Christ. Secondly, that till the practise have been convincingly proved to be erroneous or foolish( which the making of sixteen Quaeres is not at all apt, or probable to have done, without the annexation of weighty reasons against any thing possible to be affirmed by the defendant) It is an uncomely image of the inward part of the Author of the Quaeres, to blast the reputation of an Institution of the Ancient Church of God, and the Rule of his Reformed Mother, the Church of England, with that ugly style or character of befooling the people, and in plain words, that a little weight of reason doth better become our Christian Profession, then never so much, or never so little ill language. Thirdly, that as to this one, so to the rest of the practices of the Primitive Church, it must be observed, that what they then did, they did with so great consideration, and designs and weights of Piety, that no Christian that then lived, had any objection against them: And that some among us now have, it cannot be more charitably imputed, then to their great distance from, and ignorance of those reasons. Accordingly they that now know and consider the true reasons of them, do sincerely, and cannot but reverence their Institutions, and imitate their practices. And when nothing but ignorance qualifies others to accuse them of folly, there is no danger of falling under that Censure before any tolerably wise Tribunal, but by being displeased, or thinking it strange, that men should do after their kind, or that the old saying should have any truth in it( which it is so universally noted to have, that it is converted into a Proverb) that the ignorant man hath the enclosure, or privilege to hate knowledge.  
To the sixteenth or last[ Whether in case I return no answer to these Quaeres, he have not ground sufficient to conclude me utterly unable to give any rational account of my practise, now put upon it?] That the returning no answer to the Quaeres, is as unsufficient a ground to conclude all those( which make no such return) utterly unable to give any rational account of their practise, as it was an argument before setting pen to paper, that I was not able to writ what I have now written, the negative arguing ab actu ad potentiam, being as far from concluding logically( that what any man doth not, he is utterly unable to do) as the affirmative is infallible, that I am able to give this account, because I have now done it.  
And whosoever thinks fit to resume this business into his consideration, and inquire any farther into this subject, may, if he please, be directed to this shorter way, to question or debate the truth or supposed certainty of some of his own principles; And for an essay or trial to set this one question before him,  
Whether it be not lawful for the Church, either National, of one, or Universal, 
Two Quaeres.  of all parts of christendom, especially of that age which was nearest the Apostles, of the first and purest times, to take upon it to institute one or more dayes, upon any special occasion of some eminent mercy of Gods, toward the whole Church, to be used yearly in acts of Christian piety and charity by all the children of that Church, and to expect obedience from them? And whether that one Authority may not secure and justify all from any crime of superstitution, &c. in case they shall think fit to yield this obedience?  
If to this question thus proposed, it be necessary to add any other, it may most reasonably be this,  
Whether such an ancient Institution of the Church of Christ, by name the anniversary feast of Christs birth, though it be not affirmed to be commanded by Christ, or instituted by the Apostles, or( in itself considered, without respect to the Institution) absolutely necessary to the being of a Church, yet being thus( more then lawful) pious in itself, proper in respect of the ground, primitively catholic if not apostolic) in respect of the Institution, may be lawfully abolished by private men, without authority of the Church, or by any particular Church, without regard and reverence to the Universal, and for the Universal of this age, after so long observance, whether it be morally possible, that it should consent to the abolishing of that, which is founded on such Piety and Authority? Finally, Whether by any obligation of conscience it appear( not onely lawful, but) necessary to be thus abolished( either as superstitious in itself, or as subject to abuses) on this onely ground of truth, because the following dayes have sometimes been mis-spent in riot, &c. by some wicked men?  
If these Questions may be thus propoposed, it will be easy for any to satisfy himself( upon the grounds premised) of the truth of the Affirmative of the former, and Negative of the latter, and withall to secure himself that there need be no other question in this matter.   
The End.   

ERRATA.  
page. 1. Sect●●● 〈…〉 ●ect. 1. l. 9. after precept add, p. 2. sect. 3. l. 13▪ for these r. this. l. 21. r. {αβγδ}. in marg. note b. r. de Agricultu. p. p. 5 s. 5. l. 5. after where add, p. 6 l. 12. r. {αβγδ} l. 17. r. {αβγδ} p. 8. s. 11. l. 2. r. {αβγδ} p. 9 l. 24. r. Where, as l. 26. for but r. by l. 28. r. to all, so the men of God, p. 12. l. 20. before and add( and after Epistle add) p. 15. l. 9. for prove r. conclude. p. 16. l. 18. r. which is more to. p. 25. l. penult. after discourse blot out, p. 42. l. 2. for wherein r. where. p. 49. l. 6. r. {αβγδ} p. 50. l. 3. r. {αβγδ} p. 53. l. 14 r. Nevochim. p. 58. l. 12. blot out to. p. 63. l 6. r. whether they. p. 68. l. 7. r. {αβγδ} p. 69. l. 6. r. where, as. p. 79. l. 29. r. for other. p. 86. l. penult. r. Jabimoth. p. 108. l. 13. after v. 2. add) after then blot out) p. 145. l. 5. from the bottom r. on Gods. p. 149. l. 21. r. {αβγδ}- p. 161. l. 9. r Mr. p. 189. l. 3. for sends r. lends. l. 9. for repealed r. repeated. p. 197. for in r. by. p. 198. l. 13. r. Diviners. p. 211. l. 5. for could r. would. p. 246. l. 11. for to r. from. p. 270. l. 17. for which r. what. p. 283. l. 3. after not r. to. p. 286. l. 8. after that r. this. p. 288. l. last after asked r. as in. p. 296. l. 4. after doth add not. p. 307. l. 10. r.( I suppose it should be children) p. 319. l. 10. r. {αβγδ}. p. 324. l. 29. r. where, as. p. 327. l. 20. for them r. then. p. 346. l. last, after that blot out, p. 347. l. 24. after Scripture blot out) p. 350 l. 19 after to add ordain. p. 362. l. 12. r powers p. 384 l. 22. for by r. in. p. 385. l. 9. after prove add this. p. 387. l. 8. after self for, put. p. 393. l. 8. after add impropable. p. 395. l. 32. for proceeded r. preceded. p. 407. l. 2. r. was assumed. p. 415 l. 27. r. {αβγδ}. p. 431. l 3. r. discernibly. p. 437. l. 30. for as r. as. p. 442. l. 9. r. brodromos. p. 446. l. 2. r. {αβγδ}. l. 31. r. Anastasius.   

A Catalogue of some special Books Printed for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane London.  
The Practical Catechism, with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D.D. in two volumes, in 4o  
Dissertationes quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. scriptures& Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelli& aliorum. Authore Henrico Hammond, in 4o▪  
The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. tailor D.D. Viz. 

1. The Liberty of Prophesying, in 4o  
2. Episcopacy asserted, in  
3. The History of the Life and Death of the Everblessed Jesus Christ, in 4o  
4. An Apology for authorised and Set-forms of liturgy, in 4o  
5. The Rule and Exercises of holy-living, in 12o  
6. The Rule and Exercises of holy-dying, in 12o  
7. Twenty eight Sermons preached at Golden-Grove, together with a sermon preached at Oxon on the Anniversary of the fifth of November, in fol.  
8. A short Catechism for institution of young persons in the Christian Religion, in 12o  
9. A Discourse of Baptism, its institution and efficacy upon all Believers, in 4o    
Certamen Religiosum, or, a Conference between the late King of England and the late Lord Marquis of Worcester concerning Religion, at Ragland Castle; together with a Vindication of the Protestant Cause, by Chr. Cartwright, in 4o  
The Psalter of David, with Titles and Collects according to the matter of each Psalm, by the Right honourable Chr. Hatton, in 12o  
Boanerges and Barnabas, or Judgement and Mercy for wounded and afflicted souls in several Soliloquies, by Francis Quarles, in 12o  
The Life of Faith in Dead Times, by Chr. Hudson, in 12o  
Motives for Prayer upon the seven dayes of the Week, by Sir Richard Baker Knight, in 12o  
The Guide unto True Blessedness, or a Body of the Doctrine of the Scriptures, directing man to the saving knowledge of God, by Sam. Crook, in 12o  
Six excellent Sermons upon several occasions, preached by Ed. Willan Vicar of Hoxne, in 4o  
Animadversions and observations upon Sir Walter Rawleighs history of the world, by Alex Rosse, in 12o  
The Dipper dipped, or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears, by Daniel Featley D.D. in 4o  
Hermes Theologus, or a Divine Mercury: new discants upon old Records, by Theoph. Wodenote, in 12o  
Philosophical Elements, concerning Government and Civil society: by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, in 12o  
An Essay upon Statius, or the five first books of Publ. Papinius Statius his Thebais, by Tho: Stephens Schoolmaster in S. Edmonds-Bury, in 8o  
Nomenclatura Brevis Anglo-Latino Graeca in usum Scholae Westmonasteriensis, per F. Gregory, in 8o  
Grammatices Graecae Enchiridion in usum Scholae Collegialis Wigorniae, in 8o  
A Discourse of Holy Love, by Sir Geo: Strode K in 12o  
The Saints Honey-Comb full of Divine Truths, by Rich. Gove Preacher of Henton S. George in Somersetshire, in 8o  
Devotion digested, into several Discourses and Meditations upon the Lords most holy Prayer: Together with additional Exercitations upon Baptism, The Lords Supper, Heresies, Blasphemy, The Creatures, Sin, The souls pantings after God, The Mercies of God, The souls complaint of its absence from God, by Peter Samwaies, Fellow lately Resident in Trinity College, Cambridge, in 12o  
Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon Reformation, by Hen: Fern D. D in 12o