THE Matters in Dispute betwixt Us and our Dissenting Brethren, may generally seem to the unconcern'd stander by, of so slight and Incon­siderable Moment, that he must needs wonder how in the World the Controversie should come to have arisen to that Deplorable height, which in this last Age it hath done. And although the Case which will fall under our present Debate, seems to have admitted of the most specious scruples and given the best scope of rea­soning, of any other thing that hath fallen under que­stion amongst us since the Reformation; yet even here also, the Immeasurable Byass of Prejudice, [...]. and Fervency of Opposition, hath too apparently manag'd the Argu­ment. So that the Pleas against it have not seem'd so [Page 2] weighty as they have been numerous, L. 5. c. 20. Infirmiora Ar­gumenta Con­greganda sunt, imbecilla enim natio â, mutuo auxilio susti­nentur. as if the Objectors had an Eye to that direction in Quintilian, they would be sure to amass all the weaker Arguments, which though weak in themselves, yet by standing together may lend a Mutual assistance to one another; like Articles of Impeach­ment, none of which singly would perhaps affect the ac­cus'd Person, but all together may amount to accumula­tive Treason.

My business therefore in handling this Case, shall not be to follow every nice Scruple, or trivial Objection (as where the Cross in Baptism hath been charg'd with the breach of every particular Precept in the Decalogue) not to concern my self in any thing, which either by long Induction of consequences hath been far fetcht, or with great difficulty drawn in, to make a show of Argu­ment, but, as briefly and plainly as may be to sum up all that hath ever seem'd of any Moment in this matter, and that under this twofold Head.

I. That the Sign of the Cross hath been so notoriously abus'd to the worst purposes of Superstition and Idola­try in the Church of Rome; that the retaining of it still amongst us, makes us partakers of the Superstitions and Idolatry of that Church.

II. That it seem's the introducing of a New Sacrament, which having not the warranty of our Lord and Master Christ Jesus, must needs be a very Offensive invasion of his Rights, whose Royal Prerogative alone it is to institute what Sacraments he pleaseth in his Church.

Under these two Heads I think may be fairly compre­hended all those Objections our Brethren have offer'd a­gainst the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, at least all those that are any thing Material. Insomuch that if the dif­ficulty of these could be remov'd, we might fairly hope, none of the Sober and Conscientious Dissenters, but [Page 3]would think themselves oblig'd to submit to the use of it, rather than maintain the Separation upon this ac­count.

And this shall be endeavour'd with all the Candor and Clearness that becomes the design of this, and the rest of those Discourses that have been Publisht of this kind, viz. to Convince and not Reproach or Provoke any: to Effect (if possible) the happy agreement, and conse­quently enlarge and strengthen the interests of good Men. And for this purpose I have thought fit not to quote the writings of particular Persons, but rather to represent the Objection, as what is in general avow'd and agreed upon by the whole Party.

And although it is not likely that any thing should be here offer'd, that hath not been already with great Learning and Integrity made use of, by the many asser­tors of our Church; yet perhaps, the bringing this under one view, without the Warmth or Salt of an Adver­sary may not prove altogether Vain and Ineffectual.

I. I begin therefore, with the first Objection, viz. That the Sign of the Cross hath been so notoriously abus'd to the worst purposes of Superstition and Idolatry in the Church of Rome, that the retaining of it still amongst us, makes us Partakers of the Superstitions and Idolatry of that Church.

I must readily acknowledg that the Material Figure of the Cross hath been indeed abus'd to very Idolatrous pur­poses in the Church of Rome, and even the aereal Sign of it to Purposes superstitious and ridiculous enough, and if what we do in using this Sign in Baptism, were real­ly chargeable with Popery, it would be a sufficient reason to detest and Reject it. The Objection therefore at the first view looks plausibly enough, when it thus chargeth this Ceremony of the Cross; Paganism it self being hard­ly [Page 4]more Odious, nor in Truth (for some very good Reasons amongst wise Men,) more Ridiculous and Into­lerable. There is scarce any part of Popery, properly so called, but is so plain a d'pravation of Christianity it self, such a contradiction to the Rules, such a defeat to the great purposes and ends of our Holy Religion, that it deserves well enough the good Mans Justest abhorrency, which he may reasonably express, when he finds himself in any real danger of the Snare. But then, we must consider, how easie and natural a thing it is for Per­sons (that otherwise mean honestly enough) to hu­mour a Just and Reasonable Offence against Popery, into groundless Suspicions upon things which have no such Tendency at all in them: And upon these first Suspicions not only to startle, and grow alittle shy and nice, but to determine themselves in resolv'd & unmoveable Prejudices, that have had Effects ill enough. For upon this, designing Men have made their advantage upon every trifling occa­sion, giving out the word, and laying the charge of Popery, upon what it hath been their humour or interest to desire a change in. And this probably we shall find to have happen'd in this Case in hand. The accusation hath been drawn against it that it is very Popish, and the Prejudices which this Accusation hath begot in some honest Minds, are so strong that they seem invincible. How unreason­ably therefore this charge is laid against our use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism may appear when we have considered these three things.

I. That the use of this Sign was much more ancient, than the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome.

II. That the use of it, as it is ordain'd and appointed in our Church, hath not the least affinity with the use of it, as it is in the Romish Rituals.

III. Last. Although it cannot be deny'd but the Church of Rome hath greatly abus'd this Ceremony to very ill purposes of Superstition, yet doth not this make it un­lawful to continue the Reform'd use of it still amongst us that have professedly separated from the Corruptions of that Church.

I. Consider we that the use of this Sign of the Cross was much more ancient than the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome. When I speak of the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome, I would be understood as to those things that have put that Church under the Imputation of what we now call Popery. For that there were some deprav'd Customs crept into the Church in general (and so that of Rome perhaps as well as any other) in very early days, is Evi­dent from what St. Paul Rebukes in the Church of Corinth, and from what our Saviour himself in his Reve­lations to St. John, Condemns in the Seven Churches of Asia. So that, when I say the use of the Cross was more ancient than the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome, I mean, more ancient than any of those Corruptions in her by the reason of which, we have justly esteem'd her an Apostatiz'd Church, more an­cient than either the Introduction of Images, their Mul­tiplication of Sacraments, their pretentions to Supre­macy and Infallibility, or any of those Superstitious Rites in Worship, by which we distinguish that Church as Popish, and brand it as false and Antichristian.

As to this therefore, By which Phrase the A­postle in Truth meant, the Se­cret workings of the Haere­ticks of that Age. I know none of our Dissenting Brethren, however for a shift in Argument they may talk of the Mystery of Iniquity beginning to work betimes, and in the first Ages of the Church *, that yet do profes­sedly charge any Signal Apostasy upon the Church of Rome, at least for the first four hundred Years after Christ: not [Page 6]to the Age wherein St. Austin Flourisht; but that it was a Church that might be Communicated with at that time, notwithstanding that Father complain'd of the Su­perfaetation of Ceremonies even then, which (at least for the Number of them) began to be very burdensom. And yet, for an Hundred or two of Years before this, we find in the Writings of Tertullian such mention of the use of this Sign, that makes it very plain, it had been a Customary thing long before his time also, and pro­bably, even amongst those of the Apostolical Age it self. There are those indeed that would make that Fa­ther the first that brought in the use of this Ceremony into the Church, having receiv'd it from the Montanists of whom he seems to have been particularly fond. But the frequent and familiar mention he makes of the Sign of the Cross in many of his Books renders this Con­jecture very improbable. Tertullian tells us it was grown so much in use in his time, that upon every motion of theirs, at their going out and coming in, when they put on their Garments or Shooes, at the Bath, or at Meals when they lighted up their Candles, Frontem crueis signaculo tere­re. Pertul. de Coron. mil. or went to Bed, whatever al­most they did in any part of their Conversation, still they would even wear out their Forheads with the Sign of the Cross; which though he confesseth there was no express Law of Christ that had enjoyn'd it, yet Tradition had Introduc'd, Custom had Confirm'd, and the Believers Faith had observ'd and maintain'd it.

This doth not look as if it had been a thing newly in­vented by Montanus, and brought into the Church by Tertullian, as being himself too great a Favourer of that Sect. Although, were it thus indeed, yet this sheweth that the Practice of it was receiv'd among the Faithful, some Ages before the Depravation and Apostacy of the Romish Church. But he is not our single Author in this [Page 7]matter: for, Homil. 2. in Psalm. 38. Origen who Flourisht not much above CC Years after Christ, and not XL Years after Tertullian, makes mention of those who upon their Admission into the Church by Baptism, were Sign'd with this Sign. And St. Basil not much above one Hundred Years after him, gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical Constitution, or fixt Law of the Church, that had pre­vail'd from the Apostles Days, Basil. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. that those who believed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, should be Signed with the Sign of the Cross.

But of all the Fathers, St. Cyprian, who was before St. Basil, and very near if not contemporary with Tertul­lian himself, not only speaks most Familiarly of the use of this Sign, but hath some Expressions in this matter, that would seem very harsh and unwarrantable now; and yet, the Authority of that Father, hath sav'd him hi­therto from being brought under question about it. He tells us in one place, that in fronte cruce signantur, qui Dominum promerentur, i.e. they are Sign'd in the Forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord, and in another place, Omnia sacramenta peragit, it Compleats e­very Sacrament, and per crucem baptisma sanctificatur, Baptism is Sanctified by the Cross. I will not stand ac­countable for the Justifiableness of these passages, were they to be allow'd no kind of Latitude: but, as to the purpose for which they are cited they seem pertinent e­nough: that is, to Argue the antiquity of this usage (and that in the Sacrament of Baptism too) the Phrase so frequently occurring in the writings of those ancient Fathers, that fronte signati, being sign'd in the Forehead, seems a known and usual Periphrasis for being enter'd into the Faith of Christ and the Body of his Church by Baptism.

After all which, what need I Instance in St. Cyril, St. [Page 8] Ambrose, or St. Austin? Who sprinkle their writings with the Common mention of this Ceremony, and oftentimes frame Arguments of the Obligation upon Christians to live as becomes them, from this very badg they wear upon their Foreheads. St. Austin wittily enough glorying in the Confidence of a Christian as to a Crucifi'd Saviour, Nec nos pudet Crucifixi, sed ubi pudoris sig­num est, crucis ejus signum ha­bemus. August. in Galat. 6.14. that he willingly imprints the Sign of it upon that part of himself which is the proper seat of Blushing.

I shall only add this remark further, that after the time wherein this Custom had been so Universally receiv'd into the Christian Church, and some of the Fathers had so liberally exprest themselves in it, we may observe that the first Christian Emperour, Constantine the Great, had his Directions probably from heaven it self to make this Sign, the great Banner in his Wars, with this Additional encouragement, [...]. that by this he should overcome. That this Dream or Vision (call it which we will, for Histo­ries mention it differently) was from Heaven, and a thing of great reality, is Evident, from the success of that Princes Arms under it.

The Authors of the Centuries allow a considerable Sig­nification in that Sign as given him from Heaven, as the future Standard he should fight under, viz, that God had admonisht him by that Sign of the Cross, and the Motto ad­ded to it, Cent. 4. oap. 13. by this thou shalt overcome, concerning the Knowledg and Worship of the true God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in Memorial of which he took care to have it Painted on his Banner, that it might be as the Symbol of the Christian Religion.

Now we would not suppose that our Blessed Lord would by so immediate a Revelation from Heaven, Coun­tenance such a Rite as this, already receiv'd and made use of in the Church, giving it to Constantine both as a Symbol of his Profession, and Pledg of his future Vi­ctories, if he had resented it before as Superstitious or [Page 9]any way unwarrantable. This kind of Standard the Roman Emperours successively had born before them in their Warrs: nay, Theodoret. Hist. l. 3. c. 3. it is recorded that Julian himself (pro­bably from what he had made some former Observations of,) could not forbear defending himself with this Sign, upon a mighty fright he was seiz'd with, while in the use of Magick Arts he went to have consulted with the De­vil. Orat. Cont. Julian. This Nazianzen calls his craving aid and refuge of him whom he had Persecuted. Which, (by the way) might give us the modestly and caution of showing our selves too petulant against what it hath pleas'd our Lord Jesus in a Revelation from Heaven to give the Figure of, and the Holy Spirit also to signalize sometimes by very renown'd miracles, which those that consult Eccle­siastical Histories of best Authority cannot but be con­vinc'd of.

So that, we find the use of it very ancient, and the Effects of it very Memorable, Exercit. in Ba­ronium. Casaubon himself (no ve­ry fond Man of Rituals) calls it Primitivae Ecclesiae Symbolum ejus fiduciae quam in Christo & cruce ipsius, & passione ponebant: a Symbol the Primitive Church used to denote that Confidence they had in Christ, his Cross, and Passion.

I confess it would be a fond thing to endeavour, with some of the Romish Church, to trace up the Antiquity of the Cross, to the first Creation of Man, and so all along downward to the Actual Death of our Blessed Lord. They can spy out the Cross, in the Figure of a Man's Face, by the placing of the Nose betwixt the two Eyes, and much more in the Position of the whole Body of the Man with his Arms extended. See the notes of Laur. le bar upon Tertul. advers. Mar­cion. l. 3. p. 178, 179. They can discern it in the Sword in Pa­radise, and in the Cross stick that Noah's Dove brought back into the Ark, &c.

And indeed some of the Fathers bend their Imagina­tions somthing that way, and would fancy the Figure of [Page 10]the Cross in Moses his stretching out his Arms whiles the Israelites were fighting with Amalek, in the Paschal Lamb when the Spit went through it, &c. which, however they were conceipts too much suiting that way of allegori­zing that some of them were fond of, yet doth it at least confirm what I am now upon, I mean the ancient Reception of this Sign into the Primitive Church. Nay, I may further add, that in some of the passages they have of this kind, the hint they take may not deserve perhaps to be absolutely exploded, as if there were no weight or moment at all in it. I will crave leave to instance par­ticularly in one thing which some of the Fathers do a little insist upon, and that is, that Mark in Ezek. 9.4. that was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Men that sigh, &c.

This Mark in several of the ancient Versions is sup­pos'd to be the Hebrew Tau, which St. Hierom tells us was, in the Samaritan Character, like our T, and so made the figure of the Cross, from whence he Collects that this was signum crucis quae in Christianorum frontibus pingi­tur, a token of that Cross that is imprinted upon the Fore­head of the Christian. If St. Hierom be not mistaken in the Samaritan Character, his conjecture in the Applica­tion of it, is not very unjustifiable; because, as all the promises are in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. 1.20. yea, and in him Amen: So, all the Prophesies of old, where they concern'd any sig­nal advantages or deliverances to the Jewish Church had the assurance of them frequently confirm'd by some hint or Remembrance of the Messiah, that was afterward to be reveal'd. Thus in that Confirmation that Isaiah was to give to Ahaz of his present deliverance from the Inva­sions of Ephraim and Syria, Isai. 7.4. he gives him this Sign, be­hold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son. How could that great Event that was not to come to pass of so many Ages after Ahaz his Death, affect him, who stood in need [Page 11]of so immediate Deliverance, but that it was brought in as an instance, (not only that as God could bring about such a wonder, as the Birth of a Child from a Virgin, could as easily relieve Judah in its present streights: but further,) he that had so gracious a design toward them, as to send the Messiah amongst them, would in the Pro­spect he had to that, show now his particular regards for the Church at this time. In Analogy to this, might this passage in Ezekiel, look toward that mark which Christians in after Ages should wear upon their Fore­heads, as a present Symbol of the escape of those that should be found sighing for the Abominations that were then done in Israel. And to this probably, may that Seal of the living God have some Reference, which was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Servants of God. Revel. 7.2, 3. For, as they are there reckon'd up by the number of twelve times twelve, to signifie that they are the true and genuine off-spring of the twelve Apostles; so, Vid. Med. in loc. the Seal of the Living God upon their Foreheads, may point at the Figure of the Cross, to betoken them (though under the Prophetick Denomination of the Jewish Tribes) to be of the Christian Church. This I would not be suppos'd to lay any great stress of Argument upon, only offer the Conjecture to the Candor of the Reader.

And thus, having shewen the Antiquity of this Sign, as it was receiv'd into the Church long before the Cor­ruptions of Popery appear'd in the World; I know but of one thing can be urg'd to take off the strength of what hath been hitherto said; and that is, that the Pri­mitive Christians might probably take up this Custom of thus signing themselves, because they liv'd wholly a­mongst the Enemies of the Cross of Christ, the Jews making the Cross a Stumbling-block, and the Greeks Fool­ishness. So that, their design of doing it, was only to [Page 12]bear their Testimony to the Faces of both, that is, tho the Cross was scandal to the one, and scorn and laughter to the other, yet they would not be ashamed of this Cross but made it the Badg of their Profession. Whereas we live in an Age and Nation, where (thanks be to God) there seems no such occasion, because Christianity is the Religion we openly and universally profess.

To this I answer, that this Objection being thus made, doth at least suppose the usage of the Cross not to be a thing that is in it self evil, because if so, no good end or de­sign in using it could hallow the Action; so that the Ce­remony is not Evil in its self, but that upon some weigh­ty reasons, it might be brought into the Church, if so, then we might reasonably think, that the injunction of Authority in this Case, might Justifie the Practice of it. But much more, if the reason now alledg'd might be a just occasion for the Church in its first Ages to take the usage up, God knows the occasion may be as urgent still upon an Equally sad account: and that is, the Prophane and Atheistical Contempt that is thrown, not so much upon the Sign as the Doctrine of the Cross, by the pre­tended Wits of our Age. He hath a very slender con­cernment for the interests of Religion, that is not sen­sibly toucht with those Blasphemous Railleries he may every where meet with, upon the whole Scheme of Chri­stianity, especially that which we make the great Foun­dation of our hopes and trust, viz. the Merits of our Saviours Cross and Passion. That the use of this Sign, if ever it was reasonable upon such a score as this, it is so now. And St. Cyprians Caution is strong and pertinent enough at this time of the day against all the Wit and Pride of the daring and haughty Atheist, Muniatur frons, &c. Epist. 56. ad Thiberitanos. Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept safe. q. d. Remember the Badg you took upon you in Bap­tism, [Page 13]and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads, ne­ver be asham'd or laught out of Countenance, as to the Me­mory of your Saviours Love, and the Foundation of your hopes lay'd in his Death and Passion.

And now, since it is so evident how Ancient a practice this hath been in the Christian Church: I would not have this part of the Argument pretended further than it was first design'd, which was only to show that this Ce­remony hath nothing owing in it to that which we call Popery, because it was establisht in the Church so long before that Mystery of Iniquity had its being. And tho through the Antiquity of it (if warrantable at the first) it becomes so much the more Venerable, and might justly lay some restraints upon the modest Chri­stian in his Censures against it; yet doth not this put it beyond the degree of an indifferent Ceremony, without which, the Sacrament of Baptism is declar'd by our Church as complete and perfected. Did the Antiquity of its practice make it necessary, it might prove as necessa­ry almost in every Action of Life, as well as Baptism, because (as I have noted before) Tertullian tells us, it was once so used. No, it only gives us the warrant of doing it, because practis'd in the most incorrupt Ages of Christianity; and the necessity of keeping it still in use, lyes not so much in that it was the Custom of some Church, or Constitution of some Council in former days, as that it is the Custom of our Church now, and the ap­pointment of our Governours. But,

Secondly, It is further considerable, that the use of the Cross as it is ordain'd and appointed in our Church, hath not the least affinity with the use of it, as it is in the Romish Rituals.

1. We do by no means allow any visible Images of a Crucifi'd Jesus, so as to have the least concern in any [Page 14]part of our Worship. There is no mention of them in our Rubrick; there is hardly in any writings of the Doctors of our Church one passage to be found of that latitude, Christian di­rect. Ecclesiasti­cal Cases qu. 113. p. 875. Ibid. p. 876. that Mr. Baxter amongst his calmest thoughts hath not adventur'd to say, that is, that a Crucifix well be­fiteth the Imagination and Mind of a Believer; nay further, that it is not unlawful to make an Image (and gives the instance particularly of a Crucifix) to be the objectum vel medium excitans ad cultum Dei, an Object or medium of our consideration, exciting our minds to Worship God. The sense of our Church is truly exprest in this matter by Mr. Hooker, who tells us that between the Cross which Su­perstition honoureth as Christ, and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of Remembrance, there is as plain and great a difference, as between those brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple, Eccles. Pol. l. 5. p. 348. and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore. Or between those Altars which Josias destroy'd, because they were Instruments of meer Idolatry, and that which the tribe of Reuben with others erected near the River Jordan to far other purposes. Ours is no other than a meer tran­sient, or (as others express it) aerial figure of the Cross, which comes not within the widest notion of an Image; or if it were so, is so very transient, that it a­bides not so long as to be capable of becoming any Ob­ject or medium of Worship, any further than any words we use in Worship may do.

2. The use even of this transient sign, bears no kind of Conformity or likeness with the use of it in the Church of Rome. They use it upon numberless occasions beside Baptism. If they enter in, or go out of Church, or a Friends House; when they say their Prayers, or are pre­sent at any Religious Solemnity. If startled at Thunder, taken in a storm, frighted with a spectrum, or are sur­priz'd [Page 15]with any kind of Fear or Astonishment, they bless themselves still, and take refuge under this sign of the Cross, which they will make upon themselves. If they visit the sick, administer the extreme Unction, or indeed perform any of their other Sacraments (so call'd by them,) the transient sign of the Cross must begin and close all. But then, in the Sacrament of Baptism, the use of this sign is so exceedingly different, as well in the nauseous Repetitions of it before and afterward, in the Forehead, in the Mouth, and upon the Brest: as also, the Monstrous Significations according to the divers pla­ces whereon it is imprest, that nothing can be more. Be­side that it is not us'd at the time, nor with the form of words that we use it with. So that, there is not the least agreement betwixt us and them, either in the use, or in the significancy of this Ceremony; and so no rea­sonable offence can be taken at it, upon any Symboli­zing of ours with the Church of Rome in it. All this might be further confirm'd by giving a particular view of the Roman Ritual, See Case about the Ch. of Engl. Symbol. with the Ch. of Rome, p. 10.11.12. as to what respects their office for Baptism; but this is done by a better hand upon another Case of this kind.

Lastly, Although it cannot be deny'd but the Church of Rome hath greatly abus'd this Ceremony to very ill purposes of Superstition, yet doth not this make it un­lawful to continue the reform'd use of it amongst us, that have professedly separated from the Corruptions of that Church. It is a Principle that some of our Brethren ima­gine they are very well fortify'd in, from some instances in the Gld Testament, viz. that whatever hath been a­bus'd to Idolatrous or Superstitious purposes, should eo nomine be abolisht. But perhaps they would find this much more a question than they have hitherto presum'd, if they would consider, that if this Principle were true, [Page 16]it would go nigh to throw a scorn upon all or most so the Reformations that have been made from the Church of Rome, for they do not seem to have govern'd themselves by this Rule. Some of them in their publick Confessions declaring, that they might lawfully retain such Rites or Ceremonies as are of advantage to Faith, the Worship of God, Confess. Bohem. Art. 15. or Peace and Order in the Church, though they had been introduc'd by any Synod, or Bishop, or Pope, or any o­ther.

It is a Principle that would render Christianity im­practicable, because no Circumstance, no Instrument, no Ministry in Worship, but may have been some way or other abus'd and desecrated by Pagan or Romish Idola­tries. It would make every Garment of what shape, or of what colour soever, unfit for use in our Religious ser­vices: for, not only the White, but the Red, the Green, and the Black, have been us'd (even for the significan­cy of their respective colours) by the Gentile, or the Romanist to very superstitious purposes in divine Worship. It would condemn the Practice of those very Persons that would pretend this to be their Principle. For they have sew of them carry'd it to that height as to abolish Churches, Fonts, or other Ʋtensils, but have thought fit to make use of them in the same services of Religion as formerly, though not in those modes by which they were abus'd to Superstition and Idolatry. All which they should not do, if either the Principle had any real Foun­dation in it self, or they acted in any due consistency with the Principle they pretend.

That which our Dissenting Brethren urge, (as they think) of the greatest force and pertinency in this mat­ter, is the example of Hezekiah, who when he found the brazen Serpent, which God himself had directed to be set up for the Healing of those that had been stung with [Page 17] Fiery Serpents, abus'd to downright Idolatry: He would not endeavour to recover it to the first design of its pre­servation, that is, to keep it standing only as a memori­al of Gods Power and goodness, who had done such great and beneficial things amongst them by it: but without any more ado, takes it away from all further view of the People, breaks it in pieces, and calls it Ne­hushtan, 2 Kings xvi. 1.4. i. e. let's the People see it was a thing of Brass and nothing else.

To this I answer, First, Although it is very natural to mankind to govern themselves more by example than precept, yet, Arguments fetcht from examples, generally are not the truest way of reasoning; and that partly upon this very account, namely, the proneness we have toward example, and Byass and Prejudice we may the easilier be drawn away with, upon that account. But chiefly, because in alledging examples, it is very rare that we can hit the Case perfectly right. It may be said of Examples, as it is of Similitudes; they seldom do Currere quatuor pedibus, they do not perfectly reach the thing intended to be prov'd, but are so widely different, or defective in some one or other Circumstance, that there is not that parity of Reason that ought to be; and the varying of Circumstances may much alter the Case. Which very thing apparently falls out in this very in­stance. For certainly, if the example be concern'd in a­ny thing with respect to our practice, it may seem to prove nothing further than the necessity of taking away (not what hath been us'd only to Idolatrous purposes, but) what it self hath been, and at that instant is, a meer Idol. This was the Circumstance of the brazen Serpent, it was by Custom become a real Idol; it had been so for a long time, was so at that instant, when Hezekiah brake it to pieces: to those days the Children of Israel did [Page 18]burn Incense unto it. So that, thus far perhaps this in­stance might affect us, that, were there any Crucifix, or material image of our Saviour upon the Cross, now standing, to which People for some Ages had given, and for the generality did still give divine honour; it would then indeed concern the Government, in their Reforma­tion from the Idolatries of the Church of Rome, to take away and abolish this and all other Images of this kind. This perhaps answers the pattern pretty much, and copieth out Hezekiah's wise and good Action; and this accordingly is entirely done in our Church; there be­ing no such Image abiding now amongst us, to which a­ny adoration is publickly avow'd, or that can be pre­tended to have such snare in it, as to hazard any general Idolatry. What proportion doth our Aerial sign of the Cross (toward which there is no intention, nor indeed any possibility of giving any divine Worship,) what proportion doth this bear to the material figure of the brazen Serpent, to which they had for a long time actual­ly burnt Incense, did it to those very days, and gave such Evidence of their Inveteracy in Idolatry, that there seem'd no moral likelihood of preventing it by any other course than breaking the Idol to pieces, and letting them see what a meer lump of Brass they had been Worshipping? But then,

2. If Example were a good way of Arguing, we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things, he did not think it an indispensible Duty in him to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry, if they did not prove an immediate snare at that time; for, as to Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods in them, 1 Kings 11.7. Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them, as being in his time for­lorn and neglected things, of which no bad use was then [Page 19]made. Although indeed King Josiah afterward (proba­bly upon the encrease of Idolatry, and renewed use of those places) foued it expedient to lay them wholly waste. 2 Kings 23.13.

And thus much I have thought fit to say as to that first Head of Objection against the sign of the Cross, as it is cry'd out against as a Relick of Popery, and had been so deprav'd by the Superstitious use of it in the Church of Rome. I cannot but acknowledg this to be the weakest part of their plea against it; and probably our Brethren know it to be so too: yet, because it is most affecting a­mongst common People, and seems to have made the deepest impression upon those that are not so well fitted for profound and solid reasoning, I have chosen to be the larger here, that even the meanest capacities may see that the Sign of the Cross, as we use it, was not intro­duc'd by the Church of Rome, but was of a much ancien­ter date: That the use we make of it bears no Confor­mity at all with that Church in their using it: that by our different usage we keep at a sufficient distance; nay, perhaps are in less likelyhood of falling into the Snare of their Communion, than if it had been utterly abolisht: In a word, that that very Principle, upon which the charge of Popery is laid as an Argument against the Cross, is it self weak and fallible; nor are we bound by any Precept or Example in Holy Writ, to throw off the use of any one thing meerly because the Church of Rome hath abus'd it. It hath prov'd a mighty inconvenience to the Church, that People have been thrown into so precipitant a Zeal of removing themselves to the utmost extreams from the Church of Rome, that they have been almost a­fraid to determine in any action or circumstance of Divine Worship, lest it should some way or other, have been Prophan'd and made unwarrantable by their practice. [Page 20]This is that gave rise to the mischievous Enthusasms in Germany, that ended in such bloody and barbarous Pract­tises, as well as sensless and ridiculous Principles taken up and maintain'd by the Anabaptists there. I am loth to mention the horrid confusions of our own Age and Na­tion, which yet perhaps we were wrought up into by this very humour; I mean, a restless fondness for some additional refinements still, which our Church had not thought fit to make.

I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgment, as well as love the Temper, of our first Reformers, who in their first Separations from Rome, were not nice or scru­pulous beyond the just reasons of things. Doubtless they were in earnest enough, as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church, when they seal'd the well­grounded offence they took at them, with their warmest bloud; and cheerfully underwent all the hardships that Primitive Christians signalized their Profession with, ra­ther than they would intermix with Rome, in any usage of Worship, or Article of Faith that had the least savour of Idolatry, Superstition, or false Religion at all in it. And yet these Holy and Wise Men, when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming, wholly in their Hands, being equally jealous of Enthusiasm as they were of Superstition, would not give themselves up to those fantastick Antipathies as to abolish this or that Ceremony, meerly because it had been in use amongst the Papists, if some other very substantial Reason did not put in its claim against it. And verily, had they not Governed themselves in these temperate and unbyast methods of Reformation, they would not so easily have ju­stified themselves to their Adversaries, or the World; or have made it so evident (as by their wise management they did) that what was done by them was from the [Page 21]mere urgencies of Conscience and Reason, and not the wantonness of Change and Innovation. So that, where any mean honestly (as I doubt not but many of those do, that Dissent from us in this particular circumstance of the Cross in Baptism) they ought to have their Rea­son very well awake, that the meer charge of Popery up­on any disputed point, may not so prejudice them in their enquiries into things as to leave no Room for debate and mature Consideration.

Secondly, The other head of Objection against the sign of the Cross in Baptism is, that it seems the introdu­cing of a new Sacrament, which having not the warranty of our Lord and Master Christ Jesus, must needs be a very of­fensive invasion of his Rights, whose Royal Prerogative alone it is, to institute what Sacraments he pleaseth in his Church.

This Objection seems to point at a twofold argument. The one, with respect in Common to all those Circum­stances in Worship, which for Decency and Order, are appointed by the Governours of the Church, but not antecedently prescrib'd and enjoyn'd in the word of God. For, to do this, our Dissenting Brethren have generally affirm'd it a bold and unwarrantable intrusion upon our Lord and Master, who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his House, that is, in prescribing to the Jews all their modes and usages in Worship, from which they were not to vary or deviate, to add or diminish in any one Circumstance.

This I shall take no further notice of, than as it may necessarily intermix it self with the question particular­ly in hand about the Cross in Baptism, partly because I would keep as strictly as may be to this distinct Case, and especially, because this Case [of doing nothing in or about the Worship of God, but what is expresly pre­scrib'd [Page 22]and appointed by him in his word] hath been a­nother's province; so that, I shall only say, the Customs of the Jewish Church it self, (which our Brethren would make their main instance in this matter,) do make di­rectly against it. They did unquestionably take up some usages wherein Moses had given no antecedent directions, which yet it is evident were not unlawful upon that ac­count, because our Blessed Lord did not only not blame or accuse them of Encroachment or Superstition, but himself practis'd & comply'd with them; this, amongst ma­ny other things, hath been clear'd up in the instance of their Synagogue Worship, and upon another occasion may be further insisted on by and by. Besides, it is plain, this was no Rule amongst the primitive Christians in the first ages of the Gospel, not to add, the inexpediency and unfitness of this Rule to the very Oeconomy and Dispen­sation of Christianity, which was to diffuse it self a­mongst all Nations, and all kinds of People, who did so infinitely differ from one another, both in their Customs, and in the Significations of those Customs too, that it must have been a vast and bulky digest of Laws indeed, that must have suited all Countries, were every Circum­stance and Punctilio in divine Worship to have been an­tecedently prescrib'd. All this hath been with so much clearness made out by several Hands, that I am apt to think at this time of the day, our Brethren do not expect or stand in need of further Conviction in this point, and seem in some measure agreed that this Position of theirs will not hold water.

It is the other part of the Objection therefore, that will fall more directly under our consideration at this present; and that is, that our using the sign of the Cross in Baptism, doth seem to run into the nature of a new Sacrament. And this is that they mean, when they tell [Page 23] Sacrament. And this is that they mean, when they tell us, it is an outward Visible sign of an inward invisible Grace, whereby a Person is dedicated to the Profession of, and Sub­jection to the Redeemer. That it is a dedicating means to consecrate us to God; that it signifies our covenanting engage­ment, and is as a Badg and Symbol of the Christian Religi­on; that it represents Christ dying on the Cross, and sig­nifies our being listed under Christ; that it is an addition to Baptism; that it adds another Sacrament to Baptism: And that it is used as an engaging Sign, in our first and solemn covenanting with Christ, and the duties whereunto we are really oblig'd by Baptism, are more expresly affixt to that aery Sign than to the Holy Sacrament. With many other Expressions of this kind, which we may find interspers'd in the several writings of the Nonconformists, where they take occasion to dispute this Ceremony. This of the Crosses having at least the semblance of a Sacrament, is indeed the only Objection the Presbyterian Brethren insist upon in their exceptions against some passages in the present Liturgy.

As to this therefore, first, I must needs say, I have sometimes wonder'd that the word Sacrament it self, hath been so well agreed upon amongst us. The Fathers have us'd it so much at large in their writings that it would sometimes be difficult to understand what they mean by it: and our Brethren, upon the same reasons by which several other exceptions have been made, might have disallow'd and rejected it as a word by no means Scriptu­ral, but Pagan and Heathenish. However, since by a long reception of the word into the Church, it seems a­greed on all sides, what the Sense and Acceptation of it should be; my business will be to shew, 1. What we are agreed in as to the Notion of a Sacrament, and then 2. to make it plain, that as our Church never did design or [Page 24]intend, by the use of the Cross in Baptism to make any new Sacrament of it; so, in the nature of the thing, it hath not any semblance of a Sacrament, according to the Notion of a Sacrament that both sides are agreed in.

First, As to our being agreed in the Notion of a Sa­crament, I must presume our Church in her publick ca­techism, hath given that definition of it, which no re­formed Church, but approves and allows of. That is, that it is an outward and Visible Sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us, Ordain'd by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a Pledg to as­sure us thereof. It is true, the Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism do in that question of their's [ what is a Sacrament?] put in an expression or two, that point at some Opinions, wherein they may be no more agreed amongst themselves, than they are with some of our Church. But then, in their next question [ what are the parts of a Sacrament] they give us the same account with that of our Church-Catechism, only a little vary'd in the words, viz. The parts of a Sacrament are two, the one, an outward sensible sign used according to Christs own appointment: the other, an inward and spiri­tual Grace thereby signifi'd. by all which it is evident, we are well enough agreed in the Common acceptation of the word Sacrament. And therefore,

Secondly, I proceed to shew, that as our Church never did design or intend, by the use of the Cross in Baptism, to make any new Sacrament of it, so according to the common Notion wherein we are agreed as to the word Sacrament, there is not any semblance of a Sacrament it can justly be charg'd with.

And here I might, not without some reason, insist, that as we are agreed in the Definition of a Sacrament, that both the outward Sign must signifie an inward Spiri­tual [Page 25]Grace, and also must have its express institution and appointment from Christ, we, that never suppos'd the use of the Cross in Baptism could confer Grace, nor have e­ver made the least pretext to any Divine appointment for it, ought not to be charg'd as introducing a new Sacrament, when it hath no pretensions to any one thing that is of the Essence of a Sacrament. But I am willing to follow the Argument as they have laid it. They say therefore, that however, we do not call or account it an Holy Sa­crament, yet forasmuch as we bring a Ceremony into the Church, which in the Significations of it seems tanta­mount to a Christian Sacrament, we do thereby usurp the Prerogative of our great Lord and Master, setting up our Posts against his Post, and our Threshold again his Threshold.

This they say we do partly, 1. as we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith, and Christian courage, when in applying it to the Baptis'd Person, we say we do it in token that hereafter he shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ Crucifi'd, &c. And partly 2. when by an intire Representative of our Church it is determin'd, that by the sign of the Cross, the Baptis'd Person is dedi­cated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross.

First, they say that by making the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter, &c. we apply such Significations to it, that run it into the nature of a Sacrament, using it as an outward Visible sign of an Inward Spiritual Grace. As to this, we must ingeniously confess, that we make use of no Rite or Ceremony in our Church, but it is with this design, that it should be Significant of some thing or other. It would be an odd piece of pageantry indeed, to use this or that gesture or action in our Religi­ous services, that should have no Signification at all in it, and to account it therefore Innocent, because it were Im­pertinent. [Page 26]It is the Significancy of it, that makes it useful or proper, and if there were nothing of that in it, it would be very disallowable. But then, though our Ceremonies are significant, and any of them us'd as Memorative Signs to put us in mind of any Duty or Ob­ligation toward God, they are not therefore an outward Visible sign of an inward Spiritual Grace; that is, they are not in the nature of any seal or assurance from God of his Grace to us, but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to God. And that this kind of significant usages have been all along arbi­trarily taken up, without any Imputation of introducing a new Sacrament, may be made out, both from the practice of the Jewish Church, notwithstanding the punctual pre­scriptions deliver'd to them by Moses. From the practice of the Christian Church, and that, both in the very first ages of it, and also in all the later Reformations that have been made.

First, take we a view of the Jewish Church; and here­in,

1. We may observe that in their very Passover, about which, both thing and Circumstances, they had such ex­press directions by Moses before they went out of Egypt; yet did they in some ages following considerably vary, not only in their time of keeping it, which having been originally appointed on the Tenth, they chang'd it to the Fourteenth day of the Month: but in the gesture too. In the first institution of it, they were to eat it with their loins girded, their shooes on their feet, and staff in their hand, and all as a token of the haste they were then in. This gesture of eating the Passover, it is not so certain how long it continu'd in the Jewish Church after their coming out of Egypt, as it is unquestionable it was chang'd into a discumbing posture (that is, a posture [Page 27]wherein they took their ordinary meals) long before the days of our Saviour, and that so warrantably too, that our Saviour himself used it. And yet, this very po­sture they had taken up (if we will believe an Exposi­tor that was no great friend to the Ceremonies of our Church) had its Signification too; V. Ainsw. in Exod. 12.3. for he tells us that they did it in sign of their rest and security otherwise than they had in Egypt.

2. Another instance in the Jewish Church might be that of the Altar of Witness, which Phineas, after he had made a jealous enquiry upon, approv'd of, Josh. 2 [...]. as a standing me­morial that they on the other side Jordan profest the true God, had Relation to the other tribes, and a Right to the Service of God in the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

3. But that which seems to come nearest us is what the Jewish Authors do frequently take notice of, and that is, that as to those whose Office entitled them to the Anointing (which by all that doth very evidently ap­pear, were only Kings and Priests) although the Anoint­ing Oyl, as to its confection and ingredients, and the manner of doing it (as one would think) were parti­cularly enough prescrib'd by God; yet did the Jews a­mongst themselves bring in the use of a Significative sign in doing it, which seems no where disallow'd, or charg'd as an invasion of Gods Holy Institutions: this was, to Anoint the Heads of their Kings with the figure of a Crown, Maimon. H. Melachim. and their Priests with the figure of an He­brew כ or the Greek χ. Not to add, that the Synagogue Worship, the Rites of Marriage, the form of taking Oaths, and the like, things that had great Significations in them, had not the express Institution of God for their warran­ty, and yet were well enough receiv'd in the purest times of the Jewish Church, and comply'd with by our Saviour himself.

Secondly, take we a view of the Christian Church, and that, both as to the first ages of it, and all the later Reformations that have been made. 1. We may observe e­ven from the days of the Apostles themselves, the Church hath taken the Liberty of making use of one Rite or o­ther that hath signifi'd things of greatest weight and mo­ment, to instance in a twofold Custom primitively us'd amongst Christians, that lookt much more Sacramentally than our use of the Cross in Baptism, that is, the institu­tion of them seem'd Apostolical, being frequently men­tioned in their Holy writings; and they were immedi­atly annext to the Holy Eucharist, and in their Signi­fication bore some analogy with what that Sacrament it self was in part the token and seal of, these were the Ho­ly Kiss, and the Agapae or Feasts of Charity.

The Holy Kiss was perform'd (as the best Writers ge­nerally conceive) after all other preparations, immedi­atly before they entred upon the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, Dr. Caves prim. Christ. part 1 Chap. 11. p. 346. 352. and at the close and upshot of the whole Solemnity; from whence Tertullian gives it the term of signaculum orationis, the Seal of Prayer. This the Apostle is suppos'd to direct to, 1 Cor. 16.20. Quae oratio cum divortio sancti osculi in­tegra? Tent. de orat. when he enjoyns the Corinthians to greet one another with an holy kiss. And this was kept up with that Reverence in Tertullian's time, that he speaks as if the Service of the Publick Prayers were maim'd and imperfect, if it concluded not with this kiss. This was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another, and the unfeigned reconciliation of their Minds, that they came with no inward heart-burnings against one another, being that great Christian Grace and Vertue, so much insisted upon in our Saviour's Gospel, and after that, by his Apostles made one great Evidence of the Professors having pass'd from Death to Life. And yet, that this custom had not [Page 29]its Foundation in any Divine Appointment, but the volun­tary use the Church made of it, seems agreed to on all hands; because afterward, it is not only prohibited by some Councils, but by an universal consent in all Chur­ches, wholly laid aside, and grown out of all use.

Again, we may observe, as to that custom of the Agapae or Feasts of Charity, 1 Cor. 11.20, 21. which in the Apostles days probably were celebrated immediately before the Lords Supper, and in some Ages afterward, not till the Holy Communion was finished. But, whether they had them before, or after, it is certain they had great Significations in them, not only of Christians mutual Love and Com­munion; but also, of the equal regards that God and our Blessed Lord had, toward all sorts and conditions of Men; the poor as well as the rich, those of meaner de­gree and quality, as well as the high and noble, when they were all to eat freely together at one common meal. This the Apostle seems to point at, in the remarks he makes upon the disorders in the Church at Corinth, that in their Love-Feasts, every one taketh before other his own Supper, and so did despise the Church of God. And those that had Houses to Eat and Drink in, sham'd those that had not. Now, though this custom was hallowed by the practice of the Apostles, and had so great Significations in it, and was from the first, so annext to the Holy Eu­charist that it always either begun or concluded it, and consequently lookt much more Sacramentally, than our Sign of the Cross in Baptism can be suppos'd to do; yet is it plain, by the universal disuse of it, in these later ages of the Church, that it self never was esteem'd any Sacrament.

I might further instance in the Ceremony of insuffla­tion, Aug. de nupt. & concup. lib. 2.29. or breathing upon the Person that was to be Bap­tis'd, call'd by one of the Fathers an ancient Tradition, [Page 30]which they us'd as a sign of expelling the Evil Spirit, and breathing into them the good Spirit; this seem'd to signifie more the Grace of God, than Duty of the Christian, and yet not suspected as any Sacrament. Thus, the Baptized Persons stripping of his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man which was corrupt according to his de­ceitful Lusts, doth it not look full as Sacramentally as our Cross in Baptism? Yet we find it anciently practis'd without a­ny jealousie of invading the prerogative of Christ, in insti­tuting Holy Sacraments. To say no more, what think we of the trine immersion once accounted a pious usage in the Church, whereby the Person being thrice dipt or put under water, at the mention of each Person of the Trinity, was suppos'd to be Baptiz'd in the belief of that great Article. Advers. Prax­eam. Again, in lib de Coron. milit, So Tertullian expresseth it, Nam nec semel, sed ter ad singula nomina, in Personas singulas tingimur. We are dipped not once but three times, at each name, and so are Baptiz'd into the three Persons. And besides this Signification of the three Persons by this threefold im­mersion, which Tertullian, and not only he, but St. Ambrose have mention'd, there are others of the Fathers that have suppos'd, the Death, the Burial, and the Re­surrection of our Saviour, together with his being in the Grave three days, was signifi'd by this custom. And yet, was this so far from being accounted any Sacra­ment of it self, or a Sacrament within that of Baptism, that the Church hath thought fit to lay Immersion aside, for the generality; and the threefold Immersion much sooner, particularly in Spain, and that upon a reason that made the single dipping as significant as the Trine had been when it was in use, viz, to distinguish them­selves from the Arrians, who had taken occasion from this threefold dipping in Baptism, to assert the three di­stinct substances, pretending a Testimony from the Ca­tholick [Page 31]Church by this usage. Much such a reason (by the way) the Reform'd Churches in Poland govern'd themselves by, when in a general Synod they decreed a­gainst the Posture of sitting at the Lords Supper, be­cause that Custom had been brought in first by the Arrians, who, as they irreverently treat Christ, Synod. Petri­cov. An. 1578. so also his sacred appointments. Which leads to a view of the Church in all its later Reformations.

2. Is it not very evident, that in none of our later Reformations, nay even in those of our Dissenting Bre­thren themselves, but they do in their most Religious So­lemnities, some things that are very Symbolical; Actions that have great significations in them?

1. There giving to every Baptiz'd Infant a new Name. which both they and we do call the Christian Name; this seems to betoken our being made new Creatures, and entred into a new State or Condition of Life, which still they seem to aim more expresly at, in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name, or some name that should signify, some excellent vertue or Grace, some Re­ligious duty owing to God, or some memorable benefit receiv'd from him. Here we have an outward Visible sign, and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace, and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament, or a Sacrament within that of Baptism, than we do our Sign of the Cross; and indeed there seems just as much rea­son for the one as for the other, and no more.

2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren, have us'd in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper, do shew, that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it, they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture, that ren­ders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any o­ther; for, some of them plead for the posture of sitting, as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of [Page 32]all express our fellowship with Christ, and the honour and priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs. Now in this matter let us consider; our Lord hath no where expresly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture; much less hath he told us that he ordain'd this gesture in token of our fellowship with him; so that, we see this gesture of sitting (by the Tenor of their Argu­ment) made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace; and this, not from any antecedent ex­press institution of Christ; which notwithstanding, this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument, any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper.

3. Lastly, Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant, which they insist upon, that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches, must engage themselves in; this is of that importance amongst them, that they call it, the Constitutive Form of a Church, that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church. Apol. for Church-coven. Yea, and (as another expresses it) that wherein the Ʋnion of such a Church doth consist. We will suppose then, this Co­venant administer'd in some form or other, and the Per­son admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his consent by some Action or other, such as holding up his Hand, or the like. Let me ask them, What must they of that Church think of this Rite, or Ceremo­ny of holding up the hand? will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a Church-Member? Here then is an outward Visible sign, of What? of no less (according to their apprehension of things) than a per­fect new State and Condition of Life; that is, of being embody'd in Christ's Church, engag'd to all the Duties and enstated in all the priviledges of it. Will they say that this way of admission, either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administred, or the Ceremony [Page 33]of holding up the hand, by which this Covenant is taken and assented to, was originally ordain'd by Christ? or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacra­ment? or did the Presbyterian-Brethren, in all their Ar­guments against this way, charge them with introducing a new Sacrament? So that, from all instances imaginable, both of the Jewish and Christian Church, and that, both Primitive, and later Reformations; even from the par­ticular practices of our Dissenting Brethren, it is very Evident, how unreasonable a thing it is, that though we sign the baptiz'd person with the Sign of the Cross in token, that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi'd, &c. We should be accus'd as introducing a new Sacrament, or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism.

But then, they tell us secondly, we seem to own it our selves, when in an entire Representative of our Church (such as we suppose a Convocation to be) it is actually determin'd, that by the Sign of the Cross, the Person Baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross; and what can be more immediate (saith one of our Brethren) than in the present dedicating act to use the sign, and express the dedicating Signification? It is confest that the 30th. Canon doth say the Cross is an ho­nourable badg, whereby the Infant is dedicated, &c. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is, because the Sacrament of Bap­tism is it self a Seal of Admission into Covenant, and De­dication to God, and the Christian Religion; therefore, by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution, whereby we profess the Person Baptiz'd, dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross, we have made a new Sacrament, and added to that of Baptism, to dedi­cate him in our own invented way as Christ hath in that which he hath instituted.

1. To this I answer, that surely the word dedication, is of a much larger Signification, than that it should be confin'd meerly to the Interpretation, that our Brethren would put upon it. The meaning of dedication properly is, the appropriating of any thing or Person to any peculiar service, such as a Church, or Temple for the Worship of God: any Person to the profession the true Religion, to the Ministry, or to any kind of attendance at the Holy Altars. This is the strictest sense of dedication; but then, in a larger sense we may suppose it apply'd to any strict or conscientious discharge of all the Duties, and answering all the ends of the first dedication. Thus, sup­pose a Man ordain'd to the Ministry, whereby he is pro­perly dedicated to the work and service of the Gospel; he may by some solemn act of his own, dedicate himself to a zealous and faithful discharge of that Office; and this, after some time that he may have apprehended himself hitherto not so diligent in the trust that had been com­mitted to him. This cannot be call'd in any sense a new ordination; but it may with reason and sense enough be stil'd a dedicating of a Man's self more particularly to the service of God, in the discharge of that Ministry he was ordain'd to. And therefore,

2. In this sense the Convocation ought in all justice to be understood, when they, in explaining the intention of the Cross, tell us, it is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross, &c.

And yet, I must needs say, it seems hard measure upon the Church of England, that if those in a Convocation should not have apply'd the word dedication, to what might be most strictly the sense of it, that this should be so severely expounded, that no other declarations of their meaning and intention must be accepted of, than what meerly the strict and critical sense of that word [Page 35]will bear. Surely there are many expressions in the Fathers, that may seem more distant from that sense we are willing to take them in; and we should be very loth to yield them up as the Authors or Defenders of some dangerous Opinions in the Church of Rome, because some phrases of theirs in the rigour of them, may be prest to a kind of meaning that may seem to favour them. There is a necessary allowance to be given to some schemes of Speech, and meaning of words, or else we should be in a perpetual wrangle and dispute about them.

However, there doth not need even this sort of Charity for this word dedicated, upon which such weight of Argu­ment hath been lay'd. For, as in all Authors it hath been variously used, so is it properly enough apply'd in this Canon, for the design for which it was used; and the de­claration is plain and intelligible enough to the candid and unprejudic'd mind. The word dedication (as they use it) may properly enough signifie a Confirmation of our first dedication to God in Baptism, and a declaration of what the Church thinks of the Person Baptiz'd, what she doth expect from him, and what Obligations he lieth under by his Baptism. And as a medium of this declara­tion, the sign of the Cross is made, being as expressive as so many words, what the Infant by his Baptism was design'd to; the Apostle himself having comprehended the whole of Christianity under that term and denomina­tion of the Cross. Now that our Church did design this declarative dedication (by the use of this sign) and none other, is very evident, in that, though the word dedica­ted is used in the explication of their sense in that Canon, yet, do they there refer to the words used in the Book of Common Prayer. By comparing therefore the Canon and the Office for Baptism together (the Canon directing to the Office, and the Rubrick belonging to the Office directing to the Canon) we may observe what stress is to be lai'd up­on [Page 36]the word Dedicated that is, how far they were from designing the same sort of immediate dedication that is made by Baptism, and yet how by the Cross, we may pro­perly enough be said to be dedicated too.

As to the Sacrament of Baptism, we are all agreed that by that we are dedicated to the Service of Christ, and the Profession of his Gospel; Now the Church of England, both in the Rubrick and Canon do affirm and own, that the Baptism is complete, and the Child made a Member of Christ's Church, before the Sign of the Cross is made use of; or if upon occasion it should not be made use of at all. It is expresly said, We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and upon that, do sign it with the Cross. So that the Child is declar'd within the Congregation of Christ's Flock, before the Sign of the Cross be apply'd to it. Beside, that in the Office for private Baptism, where the Sign of the Cross is to be o­mitted, we are directed not to doubt, but that the Child so Baptiz'd is lawfully and sufficiently Baptiz'd; the Canon confirming it, that the Infant Baptiz'd is, by vertue of Baptism, before it be sign'd with the sign of the Cross, re­ceiv'd into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, as a perfect Member thereof, and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the Cross.

If therefore, we be dedicated in Baptism, and the Baptism acknowledg'd complete and perfect, before or without the use of this Sign, the Church cannot be suppos'd ordaining so needless a repetition as this would be, to dedicate in Bap­tism, & then to dedicate by the Cross again, but that which they express by dedicated by the Cross, must be something ve­ry distinct from that dedication which is in Baptism; that is, the one is a sign of dedication, the other is the dedication it self, as distinct the one from the other, as the Sign of Admission is from Admission it self, and a signification of a priviledg, is from an Instituted means of Grace. It [Page 37]seems a thing decent and seasonable enough, that when it hath pleas'd God to receive a person into his favour, and given him the Seal of it, that the Church should give him the right hand of fellowship, solemnly declaring and testi­fying he is receiv'd into her Communion, by giving him the Badg of our Common Religion. So that, this is plain­ly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Person Baptiz'd is admitted to, what engagement he lies under when capable of making a visible Profession. It expresseth what hath been done in Baptism, which is indeed not a sign of Dedication but Dedication it self, (as I have already said) as also the Cross is not dedication itself, but a sign of it. Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the plural number, We Receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, &c. Whereas, in Baptism, the Mi­nister, as the immediate agent of Christ, by whom he is Authoriz'd and Commissionated, in the singular number (as in his Name) pronounceth it, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

As to what is urg'd above, that nothing can be more imme­diate, than in the present dedicating act, to use the sign, and ex­press the dedicating signification; they must know, it might have been more immediate, either to have plac'd this Sign before Baptism, or to have appointed some such form of words, in applying it as the Church of Rome doth; or if it had been pretended to be of divine Institution, and necessary to make the Sacrament of Baptism compleat and perfect.

And thus, I presume, I have run through the main de­bate betwixt us and our dissenting brethren as to this Case. Wherein, I hope, I have neither misrepresented their ob­jections, nor let pass any material strength in them, nor in replying to them, used any one provoking or offen­sive word. Would they but read and weigh this and the other Discourses of this kind, with the same calmness of [Page 38]temper, and study of mutual agreement, wherewith (I dare say) they have been written; I cannot think there would abide upon their Spirits so vehement a desire for the removal of these things; but it might rather issue in a peaceable and happy closure in the use of what hath been made appear was so innocently taken up, and might with so much advantage, under the encou­ragement of serious and good Men, be still retained. I do not indeed think any of our Church so fond of this Ceremony particularly, but that, if the laying it aside might turn to as great Edification in the Church, as the serious use of it might be em­prov'd to, our Governours would easily enough condescend to such an overture. Instances of this have been given in our Age; and our Presbyterian-Brethren in their Address to the Bishops do own, Except. & Pap. of the Presbyt. p. 31. that divers Reverend Bishops, and Doctors, in a Paper in Print, before these unhappy Wars began, yielded to the laying aside of the Cross, and making many material alterations, &c. They have not those apprehensions of these things, that they are unalterable, and obligatory upon all Christians, as such; or that the laying them aside, for the bringing about some greater good would be offensive to God. I would to God, our Brethren, at least would but meet us thus far, as to throw off those Superstitious prejudices they may have conceiv'd against them, and think that as the laying them aside would not be displeasing to God, so the use of them cannot be so neither. Forgive the expression of Superstitious pre­judices. For I must suppose we put too high a value upon indif­ferent rites, when we think that either the use or rejection of them will recommend us to God, unless there be other accidents of obedience or disobedience to Authority, that will alter the Case. Otherwise the Imagination we may have of pleasing or displeasing God in any of these things, must look like what the Greeks express Superstition by, [...] I mean, a causeless dread of God. It is a passage in Calvin, that it is equally Superstitious, to condemn things indiffe­rent as unholy, In 2 Praecept. and to command them as if they were holy. It is infi­nitely a nobler Conquest over our selves, a proper regaining that Christian liberty to which we are redeemed, and would be of far happier consequence to the Church of God, to possess our selves with such notions of God, and of indifferent things, as to believe we cannot recommend our selves to him in the least mea­sure by scrupling what he hath interpos'd no Command to make them either Obligatory or Unlawful.