% PRINCETON, N. J. \ Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agncw Coll. on Baptism, No. mm2- v THE CASE OF THE Crof s in JBaptiCm CONSIDERED. Wherein is Shewed* %< That there is nothing in it, as it is ufed in the Church of England, that can be any juft Realbn of Separation from it. Galat. VI. 14. God forbid that IJhould g/ory, fave in the Crofs $f our Lord Jefus Chrift. LONDON, Printed for Fincbam Gardiner^ at the White- Horfe in Lucie ate- (ireet. 1684. CO THE CASE OF THE CROSS I N Baptifm, &c. THE Matters in Difpute betwixt Us and our Diflenting Brethren, may generally feem to the unconcern'd {lander by, of fo flight and Incon- fiderable Moment, that he mud needs wonder how in the World the Controverfie fhould come to have arifen to that Deplorable height, which in this lad Age it hath done. And although the Cafe which will fall under our prefent Debate, feems to have admitted of the mod fpecious fcruples and given the bed fcope of rea- soning, of any other thing that hath fallen under que- ftion amongfl us fince the Reformation ; yet even here alfo, the Immeafurable Byafs of Prejudice, and Fervency '*&*&* «V of Oppofition, hath too apparently manag'd the Argu- ' KKni% ment. So that the Pleas againft it have not feem'd fc B z weighty i The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, Sccl weighty as they have been numerous, as if the Obje&ors \nfrmwaAr- ^ an E >' e t0 tnat dirc & ion in QxirtMan, they would gnmtntaCon- he fure /£ Perfon, but all together may amount to accumula- tive Treafon. My bufinefs therefore in handling this Csfe y fliall not be to follow every nice Scruple, or trivial Objection ( as where the Crofs in Baptifm hath been charg'd with the breach of every particular Precept in the Decalogue ) not to concern my kl( in any thing, which either by long Induction of confequences hath been far fetcht, or with great difficulty drawn in,to make a fhow of Argu- ment, but, as briefly and plainly as may be to fum up all that hath ever fecm'd of any Moment in this matter, and that under this twofold Head. I. That the Sign of the Crofs hath been fo notorioufly abus'd to the worfl purpofes of Superftition and Idola- try in the Church of Rome ; that the retaining of it (till amongft us, makes us partakers of the Superstitions and Idolatry of that Church- II. That it feem's the introducing of a New Sacrament, which having not the warranty of our Lord and Mailer Chrift Jefus, muft needs be a very Offenfive invaGon of his Rights, whofe Royal Prerogative alone it is to inftitutc what Sacraments he pleafeth in his Church. Under thefe two Heads I think may be fairly compre- hended all thofe Objections our Brethren have ofFer'd a- gainft the Sign of the Crofs in Baptifm y at leaft all thofe that are any thing Material. Iniomuch that if the dif- ficulty of thefe could be remov'd, we might fairly hope, none of the Sober and Conlcientious PJflenters, but would The Cafe oftheCtofs in Baptifm, &c. would think themfclves oblig'd to fubmit to the ufe of it, rather than maintain the Separation upon this ac* count. And this fhall be endeavour'd with all the Candor and Clearnefs that becomes the defign of this, and the reft of thofc Difcourfes that have been Publifht of this kind, viz. to Convince and not Reproach or Provoke any : to Eflett ( if pofiible ) the happy agreement, and confe- quently enlarge and ftrengthen the interefts of good Men. And tor this purpofe I have thought fit not to quote the writings of particular Perfons, but rather to rcprefent 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 fhould be here offer'd, that hath not been already with great Learning and Integrity made ufe of, by the many aher- tors of our Church ; yet perhaps, the bringing this under one view, without the Warmth or Salt of an Adver- fary may not prove altogether Vain and InefFe&ual. I. I begin therefore, with the firfl Objection, viz. that the Sign of the Crpfs hath leen fo notorioufly abtusd to the wrft purpofes of Superfiition and Idolatry in the Church of Rome, that the retaining of it flill amongfl us 9 makes us Partakers of the Superflitions and Idolatry of that Church. J J I muft readily acknowlcdg that the Material Figure of the Crofs hath been indeed abus'd to very Idolatrous pur- pofes in the Church of Rome, and even the aereal Sign of it to Purpofes fuperftitious and ridiculous enough, and if what we do in ufing this Sign in Baptifm, were real- ly chargeable with Popery, it would be afufficient reafon to detelt and RejedT: it. TheObje&ion therefore at the firfl view looks plaufibly enough, when it thus chargeth this Ceremony of the Crofs ; Paganifm it felf beinghard- B 3 ly 3 The Cafe of the Ctots in Baptifm, Sec. ly more Odious, nor in Truth ( for fome very good Reafons amongft wife Men, ) more Ridiculous and Into- lerable. There is fcarce any part of Popery, properly fo called, but is fo plain a dpravation of Chriftianity it felf, fuch a contradiction to the Rules, fuch a defeat to the great purpofes and ends of our Holy Religion, that it deferves well enough the good Mans Juftefl abhorrency, which he may reafonabiy exprefs, when he finds himfelf in any real danger of the Snare. But then, we mull confider, how eafie and natural a thing it isforPer- fons ( that otherwife mean honeflly euough ) to hu- mour a Juft and Reafonable Offence againfl Popery, into groundiefs Sufpicions upon things which have no fuch Tendency at all in them ; And upon thefe firfl Sufpicions not only to flartle, and grow alittle my and nice, but to determine themfelvesin refolv'd <3cunmoveable Prejudices', that have had Effects ill enough. For upon this, defigning Men have made their advantage upon every trifling occa- fion, giving out the word,and laying the charge of Popery, upon what it hath been their humour or interefl to defire a change in. And this probably we fhall find to have happen'd in this Cafe m hand. The accufation hath been drawn againfl it that it is very Popijh find the Prejudices which this Accufation hath begot in fome honefl Minds, a-re fo ftrong that they feem invincible. How unreafon- ably therefore this charge is laid againfl our ufe of the Sign of the Crofs in Baptifm may appear when we have confidered thefe three things. I. That the ufe of this Sign was much more ancient, than the firfl Corruption and Depravation of the Church ef Rome. IT. That the ufe of it, as it is ordain'd and appointed in our church Jnath not the lead affinity with the ufe of it, as it is in the Romifh Rituals. - : III. Laft. The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, Sec. f III. Laft... Although it cannot be deny'd but the Church of Rome hath greatly abus'd this Ceremony to very ill purpofes of Superflition, yet doth not this make it un- lawful to continue the Reform'd ufe of it (till amongft us that have profefledly feparated from the Corruptions of that Church, I. Confider we that the ufe of this Sign of the Crofs was much more ancient than the fir ft Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome. When I fpeak of the fir ft Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome, I would be underftood as to thofe things that have put that Church under the Imputation of what we now call Popery. For that there were fome deprav'd Cuftoms crept into the Church in general ( and fo that of Rome perhaps as well as any other ) in very early days, is Evi- dent from what St. Paul Rebukes in the Church of Corinth, and from what our Saviour himfelf in his Reve- lations to St. John, Condemns in the Seven Churches of Afia. So that, when I fay the ufe of the Crofs was more ancient than the firft Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome, I mean, more ancient than any of thofe Corruptions in her by the reafon of which, we have juftly efteem'd her an Apgflatiz'd Church, more an- cient than either the Introduction of Images, their Mul- tiplication of Sacraments, their pretentions to Supre- macy and Infallibility, or any of thofe Superftitious Rites in Worfliip, by which we diftinguifh that Church as Popifh, and brand it as falfe and Antichrifiian. As to this therefore, I know none of our Difienting By whkh Brethren, however for a fhift in Argument they may Phmf/the a- talk of the Myfiery of Iniquity beginning; to work betimes ^ lc m 7 mb and in the firft Ages of the Church *,that yet dofrfofef-^^ fedly charge any Signal Apoftafy upon the Church of Rome, °f^ Hsre, at leaft for the firft four hundred Years after Chriit • not ^ so/tlut to ' ' & The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, 6cc. to the Age wherein St. Auftin Fiourifht ; but that it was a Church that might be Communicated with at that time, notwithstanding that Father complain'd of the Su- perfmtion of Ceremonies even then, which ( at lead for the Number of them ) began to be very burdenfom. And yet, for an Hundred or two of Years before this, we find in the Writings of fertullian fuch mention of the ufe of this Sign, that makes it very plain, it had been a Cuftomary thing long before his time alfo, and pro- bably, even amongft thofe of the Apoflolical Age it felf. There are thofe indeed that would make that Fa- ther the firft that brought in the ufe of this Ceremony into the Church, having receivd it from the Montanijh of whom he feems to have been particularly fond. But the frequent and familiar mention he makes of the Sign of the Crofs in many of his Books renders this Con- jecture very improbable. Tertullian tells us it was grown fo much in ufe in his time, that upon every motion of their s, at their going out and coming in, when they put on their Garments or Shooes 9 at the Bath, or at Meals when they lighted up their Candles, or went to Bed, whatever al- te27™£ '"M 'they^m in any part of their Convention, ft ill they "rc.TertuWe iveuld even wear out their Forheads with the Sign of the Coron. mil Cro j} . w hich though he confefleth there was no exprefs Law of Chrift that had enjoyn d it, yet Tradition had Introduced, Cuftom had Confirm d y and the Believers Faith had obfervd and maintained it. This doth not look as if it had been a thing newly in- vented by Mont anus, and brought into the Church by Tertullian, as being himfelf too great a Favourer of that Seel. Although, were it thus indeed, yet this Iheweth that the Praftice of it was receiv'd among the Faithful, fome Ages before the Depravation and Apoftacy of the Bomijh Church, But he is not our Tingle Author in this mat- The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. 7 matter : for, Origen who Flourilht not much above CC H^**" Years after Chrift, and not XL Years after fertuiiian, makes mention of thofe who upon their Admiffion into the Church by Baptifm, were Sign d with this Sign. And St. Bafil not much above one Hundred Years after him, gives this ufage the Venerable Title of an Ecckjiaftical Conftitution y or fxt Law of the Church, that had pre- vailed from the Apojlks Days, that thofe who believed Bafil.de spir. in the Name of the Lord J ejus Chrift, fhould he Signed ' S*»8.ca?.z 7 . with the Sign of the Crofs. But of all the Fathers, St. Cyprian, who was before St. Bafil, and very near if not contemporary with Tertul- lian himfelf, not only fpeaks mod Familiarly of the ufe of this Sign, but hath fome Expreflions in this matter, that would feem very harfli and unwarrantable now ; and yet, the Authority of that Father, hath fav'd him hi- therto from being brought under queflion about it. He tells us in one place, that in f route cruce fignantur, qui Dominum promerentur, i.e. they are Signd in the Forehead with the Crofs who are thought worthy of the Lord, and in another place, Omnia facr amenta peragit, it Compleats e~ very Sacrament , and per crucem baptifma fantlificatur , Baptifm is Santlified by the Crofs. I will not (land ac- countable for the Juftifiablenefs of thefe paflages, were they to be allow'd no kind of Latitude : but, as to the purpofe for which they are cited they feem pertinent e- nough : that is, to Argue the antiquity of this ufage ( and that in the Sacrament of Baptifm too ) the Phrafe fo frequently occurring in the writings of thofe ancient Fathers, that fronte ftgnati, being fign'd in the Forehead, feems a known and ufual Periphrafis for being enter'cL into the Faith of Chrift and the Body of his Church by Baptifm. After all which, what need I Inftance in St. Cyril, St. C Am- 8 The Cafe of the Crofs in Bapifm, &c. Ambrofe, or St. Auftin ? Who fprinkle their writings with the Common mention of this Ceremony, and oftentimes frame Arguments of the Obligation upon Chriflians to live as becomes them, from this very badg they wear upon their Foreheads. St. Auftin wittily enough glorying in the Confidence of a Chriftian as to a Crucified Crmfijja SwiMi", tnat he willingly imprints the Sign of it upon ubipudorisjig- that part of himfelf which is the proper feat of ' Blufhing. 7™rfnumbi * flia ^ on ty a( ^ t ^ lis rcmark furt her, that after the T:mf?Aug, ij tifm, and fo long as you have that upon your Foreheads, ne- ver he a(hamd or laugh t out of Countenance, as to the Me- mory of your Saviours Love, and the Foundation of your hopes layd in his Death and Pajfion. And now, fince it is lb evident how Ancient a practice this hath been in the Chriftian Church : I would not have this part of the Argument pretended further than it was firft defign'd,which was only to mow that this Ce- remony hath nothing owing in it to that which we call Popery, becaufe it was eftablifht in the Church fo long before that Myfiery of Iniquity had its being. And tho through the Antiquity of it (if warrantable at the firfh ) it becomes fo much the more Venerable, and might juftly lay fome reftraints upon the modeft Chri- ftian in his Cenfures againft it ; yet doth not this put it beyond the degree of an indifferent Ceremony, without which, the Sacrament of Baptifm is declard by our Church as complete and perfected Did the Antiquity of its practice make it necellary, it might prove as necefla- ry almoft in every Action of Life, as well as Baptifm, becaufe ( as I have noted before ) Tertullian tells us, it was once fo ufed. No, it only gives us the warrant of doing it, becaufe practised in the mod incorrupt Ages of Chriitianity ,• and the neceflity of keeping it ftill in ufe, lyes not fo much in that it was the Cuftom of fome Church, or Conftitution of fome Council in former days, as that it is the Cufiom of our Church now, and the ap- pointment of our Governours. But, Secondly, It is further considerable, that the ufe of the Crofs as it is ordained and appointed in our Church, hath not the leaft affinity with the ufe of it, as it is in the Romijh Rituals. i. We do by no means allow any vifible Images of a Crucifi'd Jefus, fo as to have the leaft concern in any part 14 The Cafe of the Crofs in Bapifm, &c part of our Worihip. There is no mention of them in our Rubrick; there is hardly in any writings of the Dolors of our Church one paflage to be found of that r^Ecdlf 1 ^ ,atitude > that Mn Baxter amongft his calmed thoughts calclfesqt' nath not adventure! to fay,that is, that a Crucifix well be- 1 1 3- f. 87 5. fiteth the Imagination and Mind of a Believer ; nay further Mid. p. 876. that it is not unlawful to make an Image ( and gives the inflance particularly of a Crucifix ) to le the objetlum vet medium ex ci tans ad cult urn Dei, an Ohjetl or medium of our confederation, exciting our minds to Worfhip God. The fenfe of our Church is truly expreft in this matter by Mr. Hooker, who tells us that between the Crofs which Su- perftition honour eth as Chrijl, and that Ceremony of the Crofs which ferveth only for a fign of Remembrance, there is as plain and great a difference, as between thofe brazen Images Ecclef.Fot.l 5. which Solomon made to bear up the Cijlern of the Temple, t- 348. and that which the Ifraelites in the Wildernefs did adore. Or between thofe Altars which Jofias deftroy^d, becaufe they were Inftruments of meer Idolatry, and that which the tr'rbe of Reuben with others erecied near the River Jordan to far other pur pofes. Ours is no other than a meer tran- fient, or ( as others exprefs it ) aerial figure of the Crofs, which comes not wirhin the wideft notion of an Image ; or if it were fo, is fo very tranfient, that it a- bides not fo long as to be capable of becoming any Ob- jett or medium of Worfhip, any further than any words we ufe in Worfhip may do. 2. The ufe even of this tranfient fign, bears no kind of Conformity or likenefs with the ufe of it in the Church of Rome. They ufe it upon numberlefs occafions befide Baptifm. If they enter in, or go out of Church, or a Friends Houfe - 7 when they fay their Prayers, or are pre- fent at any Religious Solemnity. If ftartled at Thunder, taken in a ftorm, frighted with a fpe&rum, or are fur- priz'd The Cafe of the Crofs in B'apifm, &c. 1 5 priz'd with any kind of Fear or Aftonifhment, they blefs themfelves ftill, and take refuge under this fign of the Crofs, which they will make upon themfelves. If they vifit the ftck, adminifler the extreme Unftion, or indeed perform any of their other Sacraments ( fo tall'd by them, ) the tranfient fign of the Crofs muft begin and clole all. But • then, in the Sacrament of Baptilm, the ufeof this fign is fo exceedingly different, as well in the naufeous Repetitions of it before and afterward, in the Forehead, in the Mouth, and upon the Bred : as alfo, the Monftrous Significations according to the divers pla- ces whereon it is imprefl, that nothing can be more. Be- fide that it is not us'd at the time , nor with the form of words that we ufe it with. So that, there is not the lead agreement betwixt us and them, either in the ufe, or in the fignificancy of this Ceremony j and fo no rea- fonable offence can be taken at it, upon any Symboli- zing 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, as to what refpe&s their office for Baptilm ,• but this is done by a better hand upon another ^ctomnU Cafe of this kind. Symbol. m$ ' Laftly, Although it cannot be deny'd but the Church theCh -°f of Rome hath greatly abus'd this Ceremony to very ill^i'sf 10 ' purpofes of Superftition, yet doth not this make it un- lawful to continue the reform'd ufe of it amongft us, that have profefledly feparated from the Corruptions of that Church. It is a Principle that fome of our Brethren ima- gine they are very well fortify'd in, from fome inftances in the Gld fefiament, viz. that whatever hath been a- bus'd to Idolatrous or Superflitious purpofes, fhould eo nomine be abolifht. But perhaps they would find this much more a queftion than they have hitherto prefum'd, if they would confider, that if this Principle were true, D it i£ The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, Sec. it would go nigh to throw a fcom upon all or moft fa the Reformations that have been made from the Church of Rome, for they do not feem to have govern'd themfelves by this Rule. Some of them in their publick Confeffions declaring, that they might lawfully retain fuch Rites or Ceremonies as are of advantage to Faith, the Worfhip of Ccxfe/f.BobemiGod, °* Peace and Order in the Church, though they had An.15. leen introduced by any Synod, or Bifhop, or Pope, or any c- ther. It is a Principle that would render Chriftianity im- practicable, becaufe no Circumftance, no Inftrument, no Miniftry in Worfhip, but may have been fome way or other abused and defecrated by Pagan or Romijh Idola- " tries. It would make every Garment of what fhape, or of what colour foever, unfit for ufe in our Religious fer- vices: for, not only the White, but the Red, the Green, and the Black, have been us'd ( even for the fignifican- cy of their refpective colours) by the Gentile, or the Romanifl to very fuperflitious purpofes in divine Worfhip. It would condemn the Practice of thofe very Perfons that would pretend this to be their Principle. For they have few of them carry'd it to that height as to abolifti Churches, Fonts, or other Vtenfils, but have thought fit to make ufe of them in the fame fer vices of Religion as formerly, though not in thofe modes by which they were abus'd to Superftition and Idolatry. All which they fhould not do, if either the Principle had any real Foun- dation in it felf, or they a&ed in any due confiflency with the Principle they pretend. That which our Difenting Brethren urge, (as they think ) of the greateft force and pertinency in this mat- ter,- is the example of Hezekiah, who when : he found the brazen Serpent, which God himfelf had directed to be fee up for the Healing of thofe that had been (lung with Fi- The Cafe of the Grbfs in Btptifm, &c. 1 7 Fiery Serpents, abus'd to downright Idolatry : He would not endeavour to recover it to tne firfl defign of its pre- fervation, that is, to keep it {landing only as a memori- al of Gods Power and goodnefs, who had done fuch great and beneficial things amongfl 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 Ne- hujhtan, i. e. let's the People fee it was a- thing of Brafs and things nothing elfe. nriu.4. To this I anfwer, Firft, Although it is very natural to mankind to govern themfelves more by example than precept, yet, Arguments fetcht from examples, generally are not the truefl way of reafoning ; and that partly upon this very account , namely, the pronenefs we have toward example, and Byafs and Prejudice we may the eafilier be drawn away with, upon that account. But chiefly, becaufe in alledging examples, it is very rare that we can hit the Cafe perfectly right. It may be faid of Examples, as it is of Similitudes ; they feldom do Currere quatuor pedibus, they do not perfectly reach the thing intended to be prov'd, but are fo widely different, or defective in fome one or other Circumflance, that there is not that parity of Reafon that ought to be ,• and the varying of Circumftances may much alter the Cafe. Which very thing apparently falls out in this very in- flance. For certainly, if the example be concerned in a- ny thing with refpect to our practice, it may feem to prove nothing further than the neceflity of taking away ( not what hath been us'd only to Idolatrous purpofes, but ) what it felf hath been, and at that inflant is, a meer Idol. This was the Circumflance of the brazen Serpent, it was by Cuflom become a real Idol ; it had been fo for a long time, was fo at that inflant; when Hezekiah brake it to pieces : to thofe days the Children rf Ifrael did D x burn 1 8 The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. hum Incenfe unto it* So that, thus far perhaps this in-' fiance might affect us, that, were there any Crucifix, or material image of our Saviour upon the Crofs, now Handing, to which People for fome Ages had given, and for the generality did (till give divine honour ,• it would then indeed concern the Government, in their Reforma- tion from the Idolatries of the Church of Rome, to take away and abolifh this and all other Images of this kind. This perhaps anfwers the pattern pretty much, and copieth out Hezekiah's wife and good Action ; and this accordingly is entirely done in our Church ; there be- ing no fuch Image abiding now amongft us, to which a- ny adoration is publickly avow'd, or that can be pre- tended to have fuch fnare in it, as to hazard any general Idolatry. What proportion doth our Aerial fign of the Crofs ( toward which there is no intention, nor indeed any poflibility of giving any divine Worihip, ) what proportion doth this bear to the material figure of the hrazen Serpent, to which they had for a long time actual- ly burnt Incenfe, did it to thofe very days, and gave fuch Evidence of their Inveteracy in Idolatry, that there feem'd no moral likelihood of preventing it by any other courfe than breaking the Idol to pieces, and letting them fee what a meer lump of Brafs they had been Worihipping ? But then, 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing, we. find by Hezekiah\ practice in other things, he did not think it an indifpenfible Duty in him to abolifh every thing that had been made ufe of to Idolatry, if they did not prove an immediate fnare at that time; for,as to Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worfhip of falfe Gods in them, i Kings n. 7. Hezekiah did not make it his bufinefs to deftroy them, as being in his time for- lorn and neglected things, of which no bad ufe was then made. The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. f? made. Although indeed King Jqfiab afterward ( proba- bly upon the encreafe of Idolatry, and renewed ufe of thofe places) foued it expedient to lay them wholly wade. 2 Kings 23. 13. And thus much I have thought fit to fay as to that nrft Head of Objection againfl: the fign of the Crofs, as it is cry'd out againfl as a Relick of Popery, and had been fo depravd by the Superflitious ufe of it in the Church of Rome, I cannot but acknowledg this to be the weakelt part of their plea againfl it ,• and probably our Brethren know it to be fo too : yet, becaufe it is mod affecting a- mongfl common People, and feems to have made the deepeft impreffion upon thofe that are not fo well fitted for profound and folid reafoning, I have chofen to be the larger here, that even the meanefl capacities may fee that the Sign of the Crofs, as we ufe it, was not intro- duced by the Church of Rome, but was of a much ancien- ter date : That the ufe we make of it bears no Confor- mity at all with that Church in their ufing it ? that by our difTefent ufage we keep at a fufficient diflance 5 nay, perhaps are in lefs likelyhood of falling into the Snare of their Communion, than if it had been utterly abolifht .- In a word, that that very Principle, upon which the charge of Popery is laid as an Argument againfl the Crofs, is it felf weak and fallible ; nor are we bound by any Precept or Example in Holy Writ, to throw off the ufe of any one thing meerly becaufe the Church of Rome hath abus'd it. It hath prov'd a mighty inconvenience to the Church, that People have been thrown into fo precipitant a Zeal of removing themfelves to the utmofl extreams from the Church of Rome, that they have been almofl a- fraid to determine in any action or circumftance of Divine Worfhip, left it mould fome way or other, have been Prophan'd and made unwarrantable by their practice. This fco The Cafe of the Crofs inBdptifm, Sec. This is that gave rife to the mifchievous. Enthufiafms in Germany -, that ended in fuch bloody and barbarous PracT> tifes, as well as fenflefs and ridiculous Principles taken up and maintaind by the Anabaptifts there. I am loth to mention the horrid confufions of our own Age and Na- tion, which yet perhaps we were wrought up into by this very humour ; I mean, a reft Jefs fondnefs for fome additional refinements ftill, which our Church had not thought fit to make. I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgment, as well as love the Temper, -of our firft: Reformers, who in their firft: Separations from Rome, were not nice or fcru» pulous beyond the juft reafons of things. Doubtlefs they were in earned enough, as to all true Zeal ^gainil the Corruptions of that Church, when they feal'tf tjie well- grounded offence they took at them, with their warmed: bloud ,• and cheerfully underwent all the hardfhips that Primitive Chriftians fignalized their Profeflion with, ra- ther than they would intermix with Rome, in any ufage ofWorfhip, or Article of Faith that had the leaft favour of Idolatry, Superftition, or falfe Religion at all in it. And yet thefe Holy and Wife Men, when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming, wholly in their Hands, being equally jealous- of Enthufiafm as they were of Superftition, would not give themfelves up to thofe fantaftick Antipathies as to abolifh this or that Ceremony, meerly becaufe it had been in ufe amongft: the Papifts, if fome other very fubftantial Reafon did not put in its claim againft: it. And verily, had they not Governed themfelves in thefe temperate and unbyaft methods of Reformation , they would not fo eafily have ju- ftified themfelves to their Adverfaries, or the World; ■ or have made it fo evident (as by their wife management they did) that what was done by them was from the meer The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. 21 inere urgencies of Confcience and-Reafon, andnot the wantonnefs of Change and Innovation. So that, where any mean honeflly (as I doubt not but many of thofe do that Diflent from us in this particular circumftance of die Crofs in Baptifm) they ought to have their Rea- fon very well awake, that the raeer charge of Popery up- on any difputed point, may not fo prejudice them in their enquiries into things as to leave no Room for debate and mature Confederation. Secondly, The other head of Objection againft the flgn of the Crofs in Baptifm is, that it feems the introdu- cing of a new Sacrament, which having not the warranty of our Lord and Matter Chrift Jefus, mufl needs he a very of- fenfive invafion of his Rights , whqfe Royal Prerogative alone it is, to inftitute what Sacraments he fleafeth in his Chu/ch. This Objection feems to point at a twofold argument. The one, with refpett in Common to all thofe Circum- flances in Worihip, which for Decency and Order, are appointed by the Governours of the Church, but not antecedently prefcrib'd and enjoynd in the word of God. For, to do this, our Diffenting Brethren have generally affirm'd it a bold and unwarrantable intrufion upon our Lord and Mafler, who- was faithful to him that appointed him, as alfo Mofes was faithful in all his Houfe, that is, in prefcribing to the Jews all their modes and ufages in Worihip, from which they were not to vary or deviate, to add or diminifh in any one Circumftance. This I fhall take no further notice of, than as it may neceflarily intermix it felf with the queftion particular- ly in hand about the Crofs in Baptifm, partly becaufe 1 would keep as ftri£tly as may be to this diftincl: Cafe, and efpecially, becaufe this Cafe [ of doing nothing in or about the Worihip of God, but what is exprefly pre- fcribU 22 The Caje of the Crofs in Baptifm, Sec. fcrib'd and appointed by him in his word ] hath been a- nother's province ,- fo that, I fhali only fay, theCuftoms of the Jewifh Church it (elf, ( which our Brethren would make their main inftance in this matter, ) do make di- rectly againft it. They did unquestionably take up fome ufages wherein Mofes had given no antecedent directions which yet it is evident were not unlawful upon that ac- count, becaufe our Bleffed Lord did not only not blame or accufe them of Encroachment or Superftition, but kimfelf pra&isd & comply'd with.thermthis,amongft ma- ny other things,hath been clear'd up in the inftance of their Synagogue Worfhip, and upon another occafion may be further infilled on by and by. Befides, it is plain, this was no Rule amongft the primitive Chriftians in the firft ages of the Gofpel, not to add, the inexpediency and unfitnefs of this Rule to the very Oeconomy and Difoen- fation of Chriftianity, which was to diffufe it felf a- mongft all Nations, and all kinds ©f People, who did fo infinitely differ from one another, both in their Cufloms, and in the Significations of thofe Cuftoms too, that it muft have been a vaft and bulky digefi of Laws indeed, that muft have fuited all Countries, were every Circum- flance and Punctilio in divine Worfhip to have been an- tecedently prefcrib'd. All this hath been with fo much clearnefs made out by feveral Hands, that I am apt to think at this time of the day, our Brethren do not expect or (land in need of further Conviction in this point, and "feeminfome meafure agreed that this Pofition of theirs will not hold water. It is the other part of the Objection therefore, that will fall more directly under our confideration at this prefent,- and that is, that ourufing the fign of the Crofs in Baptifm, doth feem to run into the nature of a new Sacrament. And this is that they mean, when they tell The Cafe of the Crofs in Bapifm, &c. 2 3 Sacrament. And this is that they mean, when they teli •us, it is an outward Vifibleftgn of an inward invifible Grace,, whereby a Perfon is dedicated to the Profejfton of, and Sub- jeclion to the Redeemer. That it is a dedicating means to confecrateus to God; that it fignifes our covenanting engage- ment, and is as a Badg and Symbol of the Chriftian Religi- on ; that it reprejents Chrift dying on the Crofs , and jig- nifies our being lifted under Chrift ; that it is an addition to Baptifm ; zhsitkadds another Sacrament to Baptifm : And that it is ufedas an engaging Sign, in our firft sind foletm covenanting with Chrift, and the duties whereunto we are really obligd by Baptifm, are more exprefly affixt to that aery Sign than to the Holy Sacrament. With many other Exprefiions of this kind, which we may find interfpers'd in the feveral writings of the Nonconforming, where they take occafion to difpute this Ceremony. This of the Crofles having at leaft the femblance of a Sacrament, is indeed the only Objection the Presbyterian Brethren infill: upon in their exceptions againft feme pajfages in the prefent Liturgy. As to this therefore, firft, I muft needs fay, I have fometimes wonder'd that the word Sacrament it felf, hath been fo well agreed upon amongft us. The Fathers have us'ditfo much at large in their writings that it would fometimes be difficult to underftand what they mean by it : and our Brethren, upon the fame reafons by which feveral other exceptions have been made, might have difallow'd and rejected it as a word by no means Scriptu- ral, but Pagan and Heathenifh. However, fince by a long reception of the word into the Church, it feems a- greed on all fides, what the Senfe and Acceptation of it ihould be ; my bufinefs will be to Ihew, L 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 defign or E in- 24 The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c intend, by the ufe of the Crofs in Baptifm to make any new Sacrament of it ; fo, in the nature of the thing, it hath not any femblance of a Sacrament, according to the Notion of a Sacrament that both fides are agreed in. Firft, As to our being agreed in the Notion of a Sa- crament, I muft pfefume our Church in her publick ca- techifm, hath given that definition of it, which no re- formed Church, but approves and allows of. That is, that it is an outward and Vifible Sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us, Ordain d by Chrift himfelf, as a means whereby we receive the fame, and a Pledg to af- fure us thereof It is true, the Ajfembly of Divines in their larger Catechifm do in that queftion of their's [ what is a Sacrament ? ] put in an exprefiion or two, that point at fome Opinions, wherein they may be no more agreed amongft themfeives, than they aie with fome of our Church. But then, in their next queftion [ what are the parts of a Sacrament ] they give us the fame account with that of our Church-Catechifm, only a little vary'd in the words, viz. The parts of a Sacrament are two, the one, an outward fenfible fign ufed according to Chrift s own appointment : the other, an inward and fftiri- iual Grace thereby fignifid. 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 mew, that as our Church never did deftgn or intend, by the ufe of the Crofs in Baptifm, to make any new Sacrament of it, fo according to the common Notion wherein we are agreed as to the word Sacrament, there is not any femblance of a Sacrament it can juftly be charg'd with. And here I might, not without fome reafon, infill, that as we are agreed in the Definition of a Sacrament, that both the outward Sign muft fignifie an inward Spiri- tual The Cafe of the Crofs inBapifm, 8cc. 25 tual Grace, and alfo muft have its exprefs inftitution and appointment from thrift, we,, that never fuppos'd the ufe of the Crofs in Baptifm could confer Grace, nor have e- ver made the leaft pretext to any Divine appointment for it, ought not to be charg'd as introducing a new Sacrament, when it hath no preteniions to any one thing that is of the Eflence of a Sacrament. But I am willing to follow the Argument as they have laid it. They fay therefore, that however, we do not call or account it an Holy Sa- crament, yet forafmuch as we bring a Ceremony into the Church, which in the Significations of it feems tanta- ■ mount to a Chriftian Sacrament, we do thereby ufurp the Prerogative of our great Lord and Mailer, , fitting up our Pofts againft his Poft, and our Threlhold again his Threfhold. This they fay we do partly, 1. as we make the Crofs a fign' betokening our Faith, and Chriitian courage, when ■in applying it to the Baptis'd Perfon, we fay we do it in token that hereafter he fhall not he afbatrtd to confefs the Faith of Chrift Crucifid, &c. And partly 2. when by an intire Reprefentative of our Church it is determine!, that by the fign of the Crofs, the Baptis'd Perfon is dedi- cated to the fir vice of him that dyd upon the Crofs. Firft, they fay that by making the fign of the Crofs in token that hereafter, &c. we apply fuch Significations to it, that run it into the nature of a Sacrament, ufing it as an outward Vifible fign of an Inward Spiritual Grace. As to this, we muft ingenioufly conMs, that we make ufe of no Rite or Ceremony in our Church, but it is with this defign, that it mould be Significant of fome thing or other. It would be an odd piece of pageantry indeed, to ufe this or that gefture or action in our Religi- ous fervices, that mould have no Signification >tall in it, and to- account it therefore Innocent, becaufe it were Im- E z perti- 26 The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. pertinent. It is the Significancy of it, that makes it ufeful or proper, and if there were nothing of that in it, it would be very difallowable. But then, though our Ceremonies are flgnificant, and any of them us'd as Memorative Signs to put us in mind of any Duty ©r Ob- ligation toward God, they are not therefore an outward Vifible fign of an inward Spiritual Grace ; that is, they are not in the nature of any feal or afiiirance from God of his Grace to us, but hints and remembrances of fome Obligation we are under with refpect to God. And that this kind of flgnificant ufages have been all along arbi- trarily taken up, without any Imputation of introducing a new Sacrament, may be made out, both from the practice of the Jewifb Church, notwithilanding the punctual pre- fcriptions deliver'd to them by Mofes. From the practice of the Chriftian Church, and that, both in the very £rit ages of it, and alfo in all the later Reformations that have been made. Firfr, take we a view of the Jewifb Church-, and here- in, i. We may obferve that in their very Faffover, about which, both thing and Circurnftances, they had fueh ex- prefs directions by Mofes before they went out of Egypt ; yet did they in fome ages following confiderably vary, not only in their time of keeping it, which having been originally appointed on the Tenth, they chang'd it to tbe Fourteenth day of the Month : but in the gefture too. In the firft inftitution of.it, they were to eat it with their loins girded, their fhooes on their feet, and ftaffin their hand, and all as a token of the hade they were then in. This gefture of eating the PafTover, it is not fo certain how long it continud in the Jewifh Church after their coming out of Egypt, as it is unqueftionable it was chang'd into a dijcumh'ing pofture ( that is, a poflure where- The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c, 27 wherein they took their ordinary meals) long before the days of our Saviour, and that fo warrantably too, that our Saviour himfelf ufed it. And yet, this very po- flure they had taken up ( if we will believe an Expofi- tor that was no great friend to the Ceremonies of our Church ) had its Signification too ; for he tells us that . they did it in fign of their reft andfecurity other wife than Exod 12!%. they had in Egypt. i. Another inftance in the Jewifh Church might be that of the Altar ofWitnefs, which Phineas, after he had made a jealous enquiry upon, approv'd of, as a {landing me-?^- 22, morial that they on the other fide Jordan profefl 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 feems to come neareft us is what the Jewifh Authors do frequently take notice of, and that is, that as to thofe whofe Office entitled them to the Anointing ( which by all that doth very evidently ap- pear, were only Kings and friefis ) although the Anoint- ing Oyl, as to its confection and ingredients, and the manner of doing it ( as one would think ) were parti- cularly enough prefcrib'd by God ; yet did the Jews a- mongft themfelves bring in the ufe of a Significative llgn in doing it, which feems no where difallow'd, or charged as an invafion of Gods Holy Institutions : this was, to Anoint the Heads of their Kings with the figure of a Crown, and their Priefts with the figure of an He-^^ H ' brew J or the Greek x. Not to add, that the Synagogue' ' Wor(kip, the Rites of Marriage, the form of taking Oaths, and the like, things that had great Significations in them, had not the exprefs Inftitution of God for their warran- ty, and yet were well enough receiv'd in the purefl times of the Jewijh Church, and comply'd with by our Savic-nr himfelf So 2 8 The Cafe of the Cxofc in Baptifm, &c Secondly, take we a view of the Chriftian Church," and that, both as to the firft ages of it, and all the later Reformations that have been made. i. We may obfervee- ven from the days of the Apofties themfeives, the Church hath taken the Liberty of making ufe of one Rite or o- ther that hath (Ignifi'd things of greateft weight and mo- ment, to inflance in a twofold Cuftom primitively us'd amongft Chriftians, that lookt much more Sacrament ally than our ufe of the Crofs in Baptifm, that is, theinftitu- tion of them feenul Apoftolical, being frequently men«* tioned in their Holy writings ; and they were immedi- atly annext to the Holy Eucharift, and in their Signi- fication bore fome analogy with what that Sacrament it felf was in part the token and feal of, thsfe were the Ho» ly Kifs y and the Agapte or Feafts of Charity. The Holy Kifs was perform'd ( as the beft Writers ge* nerally conceive ) after all other preparations, immedi- Dr.Cwes atly before they entred upon the Celebration of the Km'iS Lor ^ s Supper, and at the clofe and upfliot of the whole u^.346. Solemnity ; from whence Tertullian gives it the term of 352- fgnaculum cratioms, the Seal of Prayer. This the Apoftle 5 Cor. 16. 20. is fuppos'd to direcl to, when he enjoy ns the Corinthians Qgeoratio to greet one another with an holy kifs. And this Was kept cum divortio U p .v^ith that Reverence in Tertullian s time, that he fpeaks t^lficrT ^ if the Service of the Publick Prayers were maim'd and de orat. imperfect, if it concluded not with this kifs. This was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowfhip that Chriftians had with one another, and the unfeigned reconciliation of their Minds, that they came with no inward heart-burnings againft one another , being that great Chriftian Grace and Vertue, fo much infifted upon in our Saviours Gofpel, and after that, by his Apoftles made one great Evidence of the ProfefTors having pafs-d from Death to Life. And yet, that this cuftom had not its The Cafe of theCwfc in Baptifm, &c 2$ its Foundation in any Divide Appointment, but the volun- tary ufe the Church made of it, feems agreed to on all hands ; becaufe afterward, it is not only prohibited by fome Councils, but by an univerfal confent in ail Chur- ches, wholly laid afide, and grown out of all ufe. Again, we may obferve, as to that cuftom of the Agapce or Feafls of Charity, which in the Apoftles days lCV ri 20j probably were celebrated immediately before the Lords 21. Supper, and in fome Ages afterward, not till the Holj Communion was finilhed. But, whether they had them before, or after, it is certain they had great Significations in them, not only of Chriftians mutual Love and Com- munion ; but alfo , of the equal regards that God and our Blefled Lord h^d, toward all forts and conditions of Men ; the poor as well as the rich, thofe of meaner de- gree and quality , as well as the high and noble, when they were all to eat freely together at one common meal. This the Apoftle feems to point at, in the remarks he makes upon the diforders in the Church at Corinth, that in their Love-Feafts, every one taketh he fore other his own Supper, and fo did defpife the Church of God. And thofe that had Houfes to Eat and Drink in, (hamd thofe that had not. Now, though this cuftom was hallowed by the practice of the Apoftles, and had fo great Significations in it, and was from the fir ft, fo annext to the Holy Eu~ charifl that it always either begun or concluded it, and confequently lookt much more Sacrament ally, than our Sign of the Crofs in Baptifm can be fuppos'd to do ,• yet is it plain, by the univerfal difufe of it, in thefe later ages of the Church, that it felf never was efteem'd any Sacrament. I might further inftance in the Ceremony of hfuffla- tion, or breathing upon the Perfon that was to be Bap- Aug. de nutt. ttfd, call'd by one of the Fathers an amtent Tradition, f c 2 °^' uk which 30 The Cafe oftbeCrbfs in Bapifm,Stc* which they us'd as a fign of expelling the Evil Spirit, -and breathing into: them the good Spirit ; this feem'd to fignifie more the Grace of God, than itoj tf/V/^ Chriftian, and yet not fufpefred as any Sacrament. Thus, the Baptized Perfons ilripping of his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man which was corrupt according to his de~ ceitful Luflsydothit not look full as \ Sacrament -ally as our Crofe in Baptifm? Yet we find it anciently praclis'd without a- ny jeabufie of invading the prerogative of Chrijl, in injli- tiitmg Holy Sacraments, To fay no more, what think we of the trine immerfion once accounted a pious ufage in the Church, whereby the Perfon .being thrice dipt or put under water, at the mention of each Perfon of the Trinity -, was fuppos'd to be Baptiz'd in the belief of that Advers. Prax- great Article. So fertullian exprefleth it, Nam nee feme/, ei ! n - A ^ m l fn fed ter ad fingula nomina, in Perfonas fingulas tingimur. milk, We are dipped not ones but three times, at each name, and fo are Baptized into the three Perfons. And befides this Signification of the three Perfons -by this threefold im- merfion, which Tertullian, and not only he, but St. Ambrofe have mention'd $ there are others of the Fathers that have fuppos'd, the Death, the Burial, and the Re- furreclion of our Saviour, together with his being in the Grave three days, was fignifi'd by this cuflom. And yet, was this fo far from being accounted any Sacra* ■ment of it felf, or a Sacrament within that of Baptifm, that the Church hath thought fit to lay Immerfim afide, for the generality ; and the threefold Immerfion much fooner, particularly in Spain, and that upon a reafon that made the fingle dipping as fignificant as the Trine had been when it was in ufe, viz, to diftinguifli them* felves from the Arrians, who had taken occafion from this threefold dipping in Baptifm, to aflert the three di- rtied fubftances, pretending a Teftimony from the- Co* tholkk The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. 31 iholick church by this ufage. Much fucha reafon (by the way ) the Reform'd Churches in Poland* govern'd themfelves by, when in a general Synod they decreed a* gainft the Pofture of fitting at the Lords Supper, be- caufe that Cuflom had been brought infirfl by the Arrians, who, as they irreverently treat Chrifl, fo alfo his J acred appointments. Which leads to a view of the Church in all cZm.ivI, its later Reformations. 2. Is it not very evident, that in none of our later Reformations, nay even in thofe of our Diffenting Bre- thren themfelves, but they do in their mod Religious So- lemnities , fome things that are very Symbolical ; A&ions that have great fignifications in them? 1. There giving to every Baptiz'd Infant a new Name. which Loth they and we do call the Chriftian Name ; this feems to betoken our being made new Creatures, and entred into a new State or Condition of Life, which ftill they feem to aim more exprefly at, in their general care to give the Child fome Scripture Name, or fome name that ihould frgnify, fome excellent vertue or Grace, fome Re- ligious duty owing to God, or fome memorable benefit receiv'd from him. Here we have an outward Vifible fign, and this too fometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace, and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament, or a Sacrament within that of Baptifm, than we do our Sign of the Crofs ; and indeed there feems juft as much rea- fon for the one as for the other, and no more. 2. Thofe Arguments which fome of our Diffenting Brethren, have us'd in Plea for thepofture of fitting at the Lords Supper, do mew, that befides what they urge from the pofture wherein our Saviour himfelf celebrated it , they apprehend fome Significance/ in the gefture, that ren- ders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any o- ther ; for, fome of them plead for the pofture of fitting, as being moft properly a Table-gefture and doth bed of F all 3 2 The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c all exprefs our fellow/hip with Chrifi, and the honour mult priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs* Now in this t matter let us confider ; our Lord hath nowhere exprefly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a fitting ppfture ,• much lefs hath he told us that he ordain'd this t geflure in token of our fehwfhif with him ; fo that, we fee this geflure of fitting ( by the Tenor of their Argu- ment ) made an outward Vifille fign of an inward and Spiritual Grace 5 and this, not from any antecedent ex- prefs inftitution of Chrift ; which notwithftanding, this pofture of fitting is not accounted by thofe that frame the Argument, any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper. 3. Laftly, Thofe of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant, which they inhft upon, that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches, muft engage themfelves in ,• this is of that importance amongft them, that they call it, the Conflitutive Form of a Church, that 'Aplfat which makes any particular Perfon Member of a Church. church-covm. Yea,and(as another exprefles it) that wherein the Vnionbf fuch a Church doth confifl. We will fuppofe then, this Co- venant adminifter'd in fome form or other, and the Per- fon admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his confent by fome Attion or other, fuch as holding up his Hand, or the like. Let me ask them, What muft they of that Church think of this Rite, or Ceremo- ny of holding up the hand ? will they not look upon it as a token of his confent to be a Church-Member ? Here then is an outward Vifille fign, of What ? of no lefs ( according to their apprehenfion of things ) than a per- te& new State and Condition of Life ; that is, of being embody'd in Chrift's Church, engaged to all the Duties and enftatedin all the priviledges of it. Will they fay that this way of admilfion, either the form of words wherein their Covenant is adminiftred, or the Ceremony of The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. 33 til holding up the hand, by which this Covenant is taken and aflented to, was originally ordain'd by Chrift ? or do they themfelves efteem this of the nature of a Sacra- ment * or did the Presbyterian-Brethren, in all their Ar- guments againft this way, charge them with introducing a new Sacrament ? So that, from all inftances imaginable, both of the Jewifh and Chriftian Church, and that, both Primitive, and later Reformations ; even from the par- ticular practices of our Diflenting Brethren, it is very Evident, how unreafonable a thing it is, that though we iign the baptiz'd perfon with the Sign of the Crofs in token y that hereafter he JhaS not be afhamed to confefs the Faith Chrift ofCrucifidfkc. We ihould be accused as introducing a new Sacrament , or adding the Sacrament of the Crofs to that of Baptifm. But then, they tell us fecondly, we feem to own it our felves, when in an entire Representative of our Church C fuch as we fuppofea Convocation to be ) it is actually determin'd, that by the Sign of the Crofs, the Perfon Baptiz'd is dedicated to the fervice of him that dy d upon the Crofs ; and what can be more immediate ( faith one of our Brethren ) than in the firefent dedicating act to ufe the Jtgn 9 and exprefs the dedicating Signification t It is confeft that the 30^. Canon doth fay the Crofs is an ho- nourable badg y whereby the Infant is dedicated, &c. And the ftrefs of the Objection in this part of it liethin the word dedicated that is, becaufe the Sacrament of Bap- tifm is it felf a Seal of Admiffton into Covenant, and De- dication to God, and the Chriftian Religion ; therefore, by ufing a Symbolical Ceremony of humane inflitution, whereby we profefs the Perfon Baptiz'd, dedicated to the fervice of him that dyd upon the Crofs, we have made a new Sacrament \ and added to that of Baptifm, to dedi- catehim in our own invented way as Chrift hath in that which he hath 'mftrtntpJ. 34 The Cafe ofthe'Ctots in Bapifm, &c i. To this I anfwer, that furely the word dedication, is of a much larger Signification, than that it fhould 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 Perfon to any peculiar fervice, luch as a Church, or Temple for the Worfhip of God ; any Perfon to the profeffion the true Religion, to the Miniftry, or to any kind of attendance at the Holy .Altars. This is the ftri&eft fenfe of dedication ; but then, in a larger fenfe we may fuppofe it apply'd to any ftricl: or confcientious difcharge of all the Duties, and anfwering all the ends of the frfi dedication. Thus, fup- pofe a Manordain'dto the Miniftry, whereby he is pro- perly dedicated to the work and fervice of the Gofpel ; he may by fome folemn a6r. of his own, dedicate himfelf to a zealous and faithful difcharge of that Office ; and this, after fome time that he may have apprehended himfelf hitherto not fo diligent in the truft that had been com- mitted to him. This cannot be calfd in any fenfe a new ordination ; but it may withreafon and fenfe enough be fliPd a dedicating of a Man's felf more particularly to the fervice of God, in the difcharge of that Miniftry he was ordain'dto. And therefore, 2. In this fenfe the Convocation ought in all jufticeto be underflood, when they, in explaining the intention of theCrofs, tell us, it is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the fervice of him that dfd upon the Crofsy &c. And yet, I mud needs fay, it feems hard meafure upon the. Church of England , that if thofe in a Convocation fhould not have apply'd the word dedication, to what might be moit ftri&ly the fenfe of it, that this fhould be fo feverely expounded, that no other declarations. of their meaning and intention mufl be accepted of, than, what meerly the ftrift and critical fenfe of that word will The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c 35 will bear. Surely there are many expreftions in the Fathers, that may feem more diftant from that fenfe we are willing to take them in; and we mould be very loth to yield them up as the Authors or Defenders of fome dangerous Opinions in the Church of Rome , becaufe fome phrales of theirs in the rigour of them, may be preft to a kind of meaning that may feem to favour them. There , is a neceflary allowance to be given to fome fchemes of Speech, and meaning of words, or elfe we mould be in a perpetual wrangle and difpute about them. However,there doth not need even this fort of Charity . for this word dedkated y wpon which fuch weight of Argu- ment hath been lay'd. For, as in all Authors it hath been varioufly ufed, fo is it properly enough apply'd in this Canon, for the defign for which it was ufed ; and the de- claration is plain and intelligible enough to the candid and unprejudic'd mind. The word dedication (as they ufe it) may properly enough fignifie a Confirmation of our firfl dedication to God in Baptifm,. and a declaration of what the Church thinks of the Perfon Baptized, what fhedoth expe£fc from him, and what Obligations he lieth under by his Baptifm. And as a medium of this declara- tion, the fign of the Crofs is made, being as expreflive as fo many words, what the Infant by his Baptifm was defign'd to ; the Apoftle himfelf having comprehended the whole of Chriflianity under that term and denomina- tion of the Crofs. Now that our Church did defign this declarative dedication (by the ufe of this fign ) and none other, is very evident, in that, though the word dedica- ted is ufed in the explication of their fenfe in that Canon y yet, do they there refer to the words ufed in the Book of Common Prayer. By comparing therefore the Canon and the Office for Baptifm together {theCanon directing to the Office, and the Kubrick belonging to the Office direciing to the Canon ) we may obfcrve what ftrefs is to be lai'd up- 36 The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. on the word Dedicated 'that is, how far they were from defigning the fame fort of immediate dedication that h made by Baptifm, and yet how by the Crofs, we may pro* perly enough be faid to be dedicated too. As to the Sacrament of Baptifm, we are all agreed that by that we are dedicated to the Service of Chrift, and the ProfeiTion of his Gofpel ; Now the Church of England, both in the Kubrick and Canon do affirm and own, that the Baptifm is complete, and the Child made a Member of Chrift's Church, before the Sign of the Crofs is made ufe of ; or if upon occafion it lhould not be made ufe of at all. It is exprefly faid, We receive this Child into the Congregation of Chrift's Flock, and upon that, do fign it with the Crofs. So that the Child is declar'd within the Congregation of Chrift's Flock, before the Sign of the Crofs be apply'd to it. Befide, that in the Office for private Baptifm, where the Sign of the Crofs is to be o- mitted, we are directed not to doubt, but th&t the Child fo Baptized is lawfully and fufficiently Baptized ; the Canon confirming it, that the Infant Baptized is, by vertue of Baptifm, before it be fign d with the fign of the Crofs, re' ceivd into the Congregation of Chrift 's Flock, as a perfecl Member thereof, and not by any power afcribed unto the fign. of the Crofs. Iftherefore,webe^/tt7ta/in Baptifm, and the Baptifm acknowledg'd complete and perfecl, before or without the ufe of this Sign, the Church cannot be fuppos'd ordaining fo needlefsa repetition as this would bt,to dedicate in Bap- tifm,&then to dedicateby the Crofs again,but that which they exprefs by dedicated by the Crofs,muft. be fomething ve- ry diftincHromthat^iw/iwwhicrus in Baptifm,- that is, the one is a fign of dedication, the other is the dedication it felf, as diftincT: the one from the other, as the Sign of Admiflion is from Admiflion it felf, and a fignification of a priviledg, is from an Inftitutcd means of Grace. It The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. 37 feems a thing decent and feafonable enough, that when It hath pleas'd God to receive a perfon into his favour,and given him the Seal of it, that the Church fliould give him the right hand of fellowjhip, folemnly declaring and tefli- fying he is receiv'd into her Communion, by giving him the Badg of our Common Religion. So that, this is plain- ly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Perfon Baptiz'd is admitted to, what engagement he lies under when capable of making a vifible Profefilon. It exprefleth what hath been done in Baptifm, which is indeed not zfign of Dedication but Dedication it itlf, (as I have already faid)as alfo the Crofs is not dedication itfelf, buta/gtf 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 Chrifis Flock, and dofign him with thefign of the Crofs, &c. Whereas, in Baptifm, the Mi- nifter, as the immediate agent of Chrift, by whom he is .Authorize and Commiflionated.in the fingular number(as in his Name) pronounceth it, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, the Sen, and the Holy Ghoft. As'to what is urgM above,that nothing can he more imme- diate \ than in the prefent dedicating atl,toufe thefign, and ex- prefs the dedicating fignification ; they mud know, it might have been more immediate, either to have plac'd this Sign before Baptifm, or to have appointed fome fuch form of words,in applying it as the Church of Rome doth,-or if it had been pretended to be of divine Institution, and neceflary to make the Sacrament of Baptifm compleat and perfe A. And thus, I prefume, I have run through the main de- bate betwixt us and our diffenting brethren as to this Cafe, Wherein, I hope, I have neither mifreprefented their ob- jections, nor let pafs any material ftrength in them, nor in replying to them, ufed any one provoking or offen- five Word. Would they but read and weigh this and the other Difcourfes of this kind, with the feme calmnefs of temper, 38 The Cafe of the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. temper, and ftudy of mutual agreement, wherewith ( I dare (ay) they have been written ; I cannot think there would abide upon their Spirits fo vehement a defire for the removal of thefe things • but it might rather ifliie in a peaceable and happy clofure in the life of what hath been made appear was fo innocently taken up, and might with fo much advantage, under the encou- ragement of ferious and good Men , be iiill retained. I do not indeed think any of our Church fo fond of this Ceremony particularly, but that, if the laying it afide might turn to as great Edification in the Church, as the ferious life of it might be em- prov'd to, our Governours would eanly enough condcfcend to fuch an overture. Inftances cf this have been given in our Age ; and our Presbyterian-Brethren in their Addrefs to the BiJInps do Except. & own, that divers Reverend Bifijops, and DoBors t in a Paper in Print, Pap. of the ^ before thefe unhappy Wars began, yielded to the laying aftde of the resyt.^.^i. Q ro ^ and making many material alterations ■> &c. They have not thofe apprehenfions ofthe(e things , that they are unalterable, and obligatory upon all Chriftians, as fuch; or thar the laying them afide, for the bringing about fome greater good would be oirenfive to God. I would to God, our Brethren, at leaft would but meet us thus far, as to throw off thofe Superfluous prejudices they may have conceiv'd againft them, and think that as the laying them afide would not be difpleafing to God, fothe ufe of them cannot be fo neither. Forgive the expreflion of Superfluous pre- judices. For I muft fuppofe we put too high a value upon indif- ferent rites, when we think that either the ufe or rejection of them will recommend us to God, unleis there be other accidents of obedience or difobedience to Authority, that will alter the Cafe. Otherwife the Imagination we.may have of pleafing or difpleafing God in any of thefe things, muft look like what the Greeks expreS &itci