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 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 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 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
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 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 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 Vnion 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 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
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 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 well-grounded 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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