of it But for their sakes who may not have that Book by them I shall add out of it another answer which I think may satisfie a Reasonable Man Supposing then that the Evangelists did not relate the Matter Summarily but as distinctly as the Words were spoken by our Saviour Yet 2. Our Saviour also Commanded his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Christian think it hence deducible That where divers Persons or great numbers are to be Baptized together the Solemn Words of Baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost may not lawfully be expressed severally to every Person And if the Baptismal Form of Words may be Solemnly and Suitably to that Sacrament applied to every Person Baptized by the General acknowledgment of all Christians there can be no Reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the Practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the Institution of Christ or the Nature of the Sacrament and the Alteration of it would be for the worse and to the abating the Solemnity of its Administration Lib. Eccl. p. 224. There remains but two more particular Exceptions which I think needful to take notice of and those are in the Office of Baptism And the first I mean is 1. That all Baptized Infants are supposed to be Regenerated of which as some say we cannot be certain But I desire those that say so to consider if the Scripture does not attribute to Baptism as much as the Liturgie does We are said by Baptism to be made Members of Christ's Body By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 13. And to be Baptized into Christ and to put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. and he that is in Christ is a new creature And to be Baptized for the Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Baptism is also called the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Now if it be made a Question Whether Infants are Regenerated in Baptism the Question at last must come to this Whether they are Qualified to become Members of Christs Body to be admitted into God's Covenant to receive Pardon of Original Sin and to become New Creatures gaining that State by Grace which they could not have by Nature And I do not see that any but Anabaptists can deny this For they that contend as we do that Infants are capable of Baptism must not deny them to be qualified for this Grace of Baptism unless they will make the Ordinance and Promises of God to be of none effect towards them Now if Infants do by Baptism gain Remission of Sin and are made Members of Christ they are Regenerated and Born anew If they do not gain this by it what does their Baptism signifie Or what benefit can they be supposed to have by it if they die in their Infancy more than if they had not been Baptiz'd at all This is the only means of Salvation they can have And those expressions of the Scripture above recited with many more will justifie our Church which supposes that this means will be effectual so long as they are capable of none other and therefore ought to be considered by those that make it to be of none effect I shall only add That this had been thought a strange Question in the Ancient Church Whether Infants were Regenerated by Baptism when the Pelagians whose cause led them to deny it yet durst not do it directly because they knew it would not be endured and therefore they confessed that Infants were to be Baptiz'd to qualifie them for the Kingdom of Heaven but not for the Remission of Sin So that they themselves seemed to acknowledge the saving effect of Baptism to Infants though as St. Austin often shewed them they contradicted themselves by so doing But they durst do no otherwise because the Doctrine of the Church was so plainly against them in this matter and every Believer was so settled in it that I remember St. Austin somewhere speaks to this purpose that the Pelagians would have come to the point and denied that the Baptism of Infants signified any thing at all to their Salvation and therefore might be as well let alone but that they were afraid the Mothers themselves of those Children would every where reproach them for it The other Objection against the Office of Baptism is this That the Godfathers and Godmothers that answer for Infants are not their Parents or Guardians but others who have they say no Authority to Covenant or Act in their Names In answer to whih I shall omit several things that might be said and content my self with these two things which I think may be sufficient 1. That in all cases where the Sureties are procured by the Parents there they have Authority to Covenant in behalf of the Infant and this the Objectors must grant I think upon their own Principles since they contend that Parents or Pro-parents are fittest to act in behalf of the Baptized Infants as having Authority so to do since they have the Power to dispose of their Education afterward For then the Sureties which are by them prevailed with to stand for their Children have at least all that Authority which the Parents can give them And this is sufficiently known to be the case with us And this is that which the Church might well suppose viz. that the Sureties which contract with the Church in the Infants Name would be procured by the Parents so that the Parents Contracting in behalf of the Infant is included in the Undertaking of the Sureties who although they are required by the Church to answer for the Infant yet are they supposed to be Authoriz'd by its Parents also so to do 2. The good Design of this Order and Appointment in the Church ought to be considered which is not the less for the fault of Men and the looseness of these times does often defeat it For hereby the Church taketh greater security that the Infant shall be brought up in the Knowledge and Practice of that Holy Covenant into which it is Baptiz'd In as much as besides the care of the Parents which is in effect promised and may be more reasonably rely'd upon without their own Solemn Act upon the account of that Natural Affection which makes them particularly concerned besides this I say there is a Particular Obligation laid upon others also to see that the Infant be so Educated as much as in them lies In case the Parents should die before the Child is grown to years of Discretion the Sureties are then more Particularly Obliged to look to their Godchild that he be put into a way of learning and doing his Duty If they should not die before but be remiss the Sureties have Authority to come to them and Admonish them of their Duty and to let them know
that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it since they did in effect and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it when the Sureties undertook for the Child Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge and come abroad into the World he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents in case he does amiss and their Reproofs are more likely to take place than those of most other Persons Now though all Christians as Members of one Body are to take care of and to watch over one another yet some are more Particularly Obliged and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others And I appeal to all considering Men if Sureties at Baptism may not with great Authority and with likelyhood of good effect Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Vnruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow or the Children for not hearkening to good Admonition And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied But it is by no means desireable that the opportunity thereof and the obligation thereunto should be taken away I know some will be apt to say that this is but rarely Practised But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it we must look where 't is kept though it be kept but by few and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded themselves may help to remove this Objection by returning to the Church and encreasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their good Examples As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptiz'd Persons to and that Infants do stand ingaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge This is the known meaning of the Contract nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding After all there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons and that is That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book and the Breviary and the Offices of the Church of Rome This Objection hath made a great noise but I appeal to Understanding Men if there be any sense in it No Man will say that 't is enough to make any Prayer or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book c. For then the Lords Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scriptures besides and the Creeds must never be used by us And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not must be judged of by some other Rule that is by the Word of God So that 't is a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgie to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book unless it could be shewn withal that it is some part of the Romish Superstition I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us though the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever we can But what reason is there for this For the Danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill not in which they do well And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them wherein they are right And as for the Things themselves they are not the worse for being used by them We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us The Case in short is this When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgie they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions which the usurpt Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church And in this they did like Wise Men because thus it would be evident to all the World that they Reformed upon just necessary Reasons and not meerly out of a desire of Change and Innovation since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions and an unprofitable croud of Ceremonies No Man can shew a good Reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book it self is not to be blamed for neither is our Liturgie to be blamed if we will speak justly of things and without Prejudice and Passion I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgie which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion but rather to gain some alterations which in their Judgment would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer and given it a greater perfection whether they were right in this or not I will not now dispute being very desirous as I pray God we may all be to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be Nay
shall be Scandalized at what another man does for it is as much as to say that by such a person and action he shall be led into sin ignorantly and his saying this confutes his ignorance If he knows it to be a sin he is not betrayed into it nor doth he fall into it through ignorance and mistake which is the case of those that are Scandalized but wilfully commits it This a great Bishop compares with the peevishness of a little Child who when he is commanded to pronounce the word he hath no mind to tells you he cannot pronounce that word at the same time naming the word he pretends he cannot speak Such Nonsense it is for a man to forbid me doing any thing upon pretence it will be a Scandal to him or make him through mistake fall into some sin when by this it is plain that he knows of it beforehand and so may and ought to avoid the stumbling-block that is laid before him and the danger that he is exposed unto Surely saith Solomon Prov. 1. 17. in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird. If to Offend or Scandalize any one is to tempt and draw him into some sin whereby his Conscience is wounded there then can be no fear of giving Offence by our Conformity to the orders and usages of our Church because there is nothing appointed by or used in it but what may be complyed withal without sin For this as I before observed is supposed in the Question I at first propounded to discourse of that he who absented from his Parish Church for fear of Offending his weak Brethren was convinced in his own mind of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyn'd and therefore by his own Conformity he can only engage others to do as he hath done which as long as he is perswaded to be lawful I do not see how he can be afraid of Scandalizing others by it or making them to sin by his Example unless he will imagine his Brethren not so weak but so wicked as to Worship the Host because he Kneels at receiving of the Sacrament and to adore the Cross because he bows at the Name of Jesus or that they will renounce all Religion because he hath forsaken their ways of Separation This cannot but prove a vain excuse for me to forbear doing that in which there is really no evil lest by the Authority of my example I make others sin in doing the same innocent action which in this case is so far from being to be feared that if by my example I prevail with others to return into the Communion of our Church they are not thereby at all Scandalized but I have done them a most signal kindness and benefit If it be said that tho what I do is in it self lawful yet it may minister occasion or provocation to others to do something else that is unlawful and so I become truly guilty of giving Offence I Answer that we are accountable only for the natural tendencies or probable effects of our actions which may be easily foreseen and prevented Remote probabilites and contingencies and bare possibilities come not into reckoning nor are they at all to be weighed If in every action I am bound to consider what advantage a wicked sensual Man or a weak silly man might take and what Arguments he might possibly thence draw to encourage himself in sin and folly or excuse himself from the care of his Soul and Religion this would open the door to infinite Scrupulosity and trouble and I should hardly be able to do or speak any thing without the incurring the guilt of giving Scandal Now this being supposed I dare boldly challenge any Man to name any one sin either against God our Neighbour or our selves that our Conformity doth give any real probable occasion unto and it is very uncharitable to conceit that our Nonconforming Brethren will out of meer perverseness or spite and revenge run into sin on purpose to make our leaving them criminal and vicious which if any should be so wicked as to do yet they would lose the design of their malice and prove the only guilty persons themselves The only thing I imagine can be further said in this case is that tho I am well satisfied my self yet by my Conformity I may tempt and provoke others that are not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it nay those who judge it absolutely sinful yet rather than stand out or being moved by the opin on they have of my goodness and Wisdom to follow my example with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience Suppose a Master of Family that used to frequent the private Meetings and his Wife and Children and Servants used to follow him thither but afterwards by reading of such good Books as have been lately written is himself satisfied concerning the lawfulness of going to Church and at last thinks it his duty so to do only he is afraid that the rest of his Family to please and humour him will be apt also to forsake the private Meetings and go along with him to Church tho it be altogether against their judgment and Conscience Or suppose him a man of eminency amongst his Neighbours on whose favour many do depend of great interest and reputation by whose example many are sway'd and led Tho himself doth conform upon good reasons and principles yet his example may invite many others to it tho they have received no satisfaction concerning the lawfulness of it Now here I desire these three things may be considered 1. It is certain that it is as unlawful to go to the Separate Meetings against ones Conscience as it is to go to the publick Church against ones Conscience Why then ought not this man to be as afraid when he leaves his Parish-Church and frequents the private Congregation lest he should draw some to follow him thither with a doubting Conscience as well as he fears if he leaves the Meetings and resorts to his Parish-Church some not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it should come after him thither The influence of his Example interest reputation is the same in both instances the danger of giving this Scandal is equal that therefore whâ—ch ought to determine his practice must be his own Judgment and persuasion 2. Such an one who hath been a Separatist but is now himself satisfied of the lawfulness of Conformity ought to take great care and pains in endeavouring to satisfie others also especially those whom he hath any cause to think to have been led into the ways of Separation by his example He must not be ashamed to own his former mistake to set before them the reasons on which his change is grounded and must do this publickly and frequently persuading others to use the same helps and means which were so effectual for his own conviction And thus he doth all that lieth in his power to prevent this ill effect and shall not be further answerable for the consequences
would have ours to be And though there is greater need of Caution against it in such places yet the way of their Confession makes the mistake more difficult to be prevented Indeed we find in the Scripture Examples of Holy Men confessing such Sins as themselves were not guilty of Thus did Jeremiah Nehemiah Ezra c. But this was upon Solemn Humiliation for those known and publick Idolatries of the Nation which had brought Gods heavy Judgments upon them or for Common and Scandalous Transgressions afterward They considered themselves as part of that Community which had provoked God to send them into Captivity and therefore they bore their part in the Common Calamity with such meekness and confessed the Common Sins with such humility as if themselves had offended as greatly in their own Persons as their Countrey-men had done But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those Confessions of Sin that such extraordinary occasions of Publick Humiliation require and those that are fit for the ordinary Service of God in the constant and stated Assemblies of the Church But it ought not to be forgot that those particular Confessions of Sin which some Men want in our Liturgie are not properly the matter of that Publick Service we are to offer daily unto God in Religious Assemblies but of that Private Devotion which is necessary to be performed in our Closets And if we could be persuaded seriously to enter upon this Work of Examining our selves impartially concerning those Sins which we have more openly or secretly committed and then to humble our selves before God for them with particular Confessions and sutable Prayer for his Grace and Pardon we should then find our Affections prepared to comply with those more General Confessions of Sin which we make with the whole Congregation we should then have less reason to complain that those Confessions are not apt to move us because this way would cure the deadness of our hearts which commonly are most to blame when we find fault with the means that God hath provided for us To conclude this Matter There is great need of Particular Confession of Sins in Religious Assemblies but that of another sort than what I have yet been speaking of and that is the particular and humble Confession which every Scandalous Sinner ought to make in the Congregation for the satisfaction of the Church and the declaration of a true Repentance This is not properly an Act of Worship but of Discipline but alas almost lost in this miserably divided state of the Church a loss never enough to be lamented For so it has fallen out that by quarreling for a Reformation in things of an Indifferent Nature that ought to be left to the Prudence of Governours and the Communion of Christians is broken and the Spiritual Authority which Christ left in his Church is exposed to Contempt which is a Matter of a thousand times more concern then all the Objections against the Book of Common Prayer put together though they were as considerable as our Adversaries seem to believe they are The second Objection I shall take notice of is that against the shortness of the Collects by reason of which it is pretended that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off and then begun again And this is thought not so agreeable to the Gravity wherewith this Duty ought to be performed nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People as one continued Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together Now in answer to this I say 1. That the meer shortness of a Prayer is not to be found fault with by any understanding Christian since this would be to disparage that Form of Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples it being not much longer than most of our Collects and not so long as some of them 2. That it will be hard to prove That many of these short Prayers being offer'd up unto God one immediately after another is either not so Grave or not so Edifying as one Continued Form I do not believe the difference to be so great as it is made by those that do not approve our way For the Work of Praying is as much continued all the while as if there were but one Continued Form Indeed in the Book the Printed Prayer breaks off somewhat often and there is a distinction made between the several Collects by a New Title shewing the Matter of the Prayer and by beginning a New Line But I hope our Brethren do not mean that in this there is a defect of Gravity or any hindrance of Devotion and Edification For the abruption of the Printed Forms is by no means an interruption of our Prayer since we still go on in Praying or in giving Thanks to God and without breaking off pass from one Petition or Matter of Invocation to another as immediately as if the Distinct Forms we use together were all brought into the Compass of One. And as there is no Interruption of our Praying caused by the frequent beginning and ending of the Collects so neither can this cause an Interruption of Attention in the People which is rather helped by that frequency of saying Amen which this way requires Nor can it be charged with a tendency to Interrupt that Devout Affection and Godly Disposition of Mind which is the best thing in Prayer But on the other hand this may be kept alive and more effectually secured by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do I know some have said this is done more frequently than is meet But it would be a lamentable thing if there should be any difference about this Matter When the Decence and Convenience of a thing is considered we should attribute much to the Wisdom of Authority and to the Judgment of Prudent and Holy Men such as our first Reformers were and great numbers of Learned Persons since their time were also who thought this manner of Praying to be Grave and Edifying And I believe others would be of the same Mind if they would not altogether dwell upon their Prejudice against our way but attend a little to those considerations that favour it and which discover the advantage and usefulness of it which sort of Equity they that are Wise and Humble will shew to all Men much more to their Governours Now the Invocation of God somewhat often by his Attributes does of it self tend to maintain in our Minds a reverent sense of his Majesty and Presence which we all know is of necessary use to make us Pray unto him as we ought to do I make no question but those that have been blamed for repeating Lord Lord so very often in their Extempore Prayers would think themselves somewhat hardly used if they should not be believed in saying that this was not for want of Matter but for the exciting of a reverent sense of Gods Authority in
first sort which I call a strict Institution and then their Argument had been good but this they will never be able to prove because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort and because our Saviour was Baptised in whom there was a greater incapacity as to the ends of Baptism than possibly can be in Infants even as he was in a greater incapacity as to answering the ends of Circumcision than ordinary Jewish Infants were John verily did Baptize with the Baptism of Repentance and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this and other ends of his Baptism he forbad him telling him that he was fitter to be the Baptist than to be Baptized of him but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptized viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness he suffered him which shews that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude and that in such an Institution the incapacity of a Person as to some ends doth not incapacitate him for it when he is capable of the rest But Secondly This way of arguing from the incapacity of Infants as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflecting upon the Wisdom of God who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised although all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered but by the Circumcision of adult Persons who only were capable of understanding the nature of the Institution and the nature of the Covenant into which they were to enter of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament in which Children were merely Passive and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned upon sealing unto them the Remission of their Sins Wherefore the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision as well as Infant-Baptism because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends that Baptism now is and accordingly when Men were initiated by Circumcision they were to profess their Faith and Repentance and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to renounce Idolatry and all idolatrous Manners and Worship and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations and yet upon the desire of such Proselytes their Children were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism though they were altogether uncapable of understanding or doing those things which their Fathers did Wherefore those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism reproach the Divine Wisdom and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church not considering that Circumcision was and Baptism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass designed on purpose by God for Children in whom there is a capacity for some nay for the * * * Rem Praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt hoc est restificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus tutelam suam suscipientis gratiam conferentis c. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia quae consistit in remissione peccatorum regeneratione adoptione haereditate Vitae aeternae cujus sane gratiae Infantes indigentes capaces sunt Cassand de Bapt. Infant chief ends of Baptism as well as for Men and Women in whom there is a capa city for all They are capable of all the ends of it as it is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his Gracious favour and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace For their Child-hood doth not hinder but that they may be made Members of the Church as of a Family Tribe Colledge or any other Society nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopted the Children of God than the Children of any other Person nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption than by vertue of any other civil Adoption the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men and of being instated in all the Priviledges of any Society though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it nor understand any thing thereof Since therefore Children are as capable and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and the Priviledges of Church Membership as Men is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Priviledges should be applied unto them as well as unto these Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby Or to make a Comparison which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Baptism Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traytor 's Child and in the Presence of several Persons assembled for that purpose should say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treason by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles and is quite undone though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance to which henceforward he shall have as much right as if the Family had never been attainted I justifie him freely and declare my self reconciled unto him and that no spot or imputation may hereafter lay upon him I here before you all wash him with pure water to signifie that he is cleansed from his Original Attaindure and Corruption of Blood and that he is as fully restored to his Birth-right as if he had never been Attaint Now suppose this were done for a poor attainted Infant could any Man say that the action was insignificant and invalid because the Child knew nothing of it or that he was incapable of the Sign when he was capable of being washed from the Attaindure and of being thereby restored to his blood and Birth-right which was the chief thing signified thereby These things should be well considered by the Despisers of Infant-Baptism against whom I may urge for Precedents the Circumcision and Baptism of the Jewish Church both these as I must often observe were applied unto Infants as well as adult and actual Believers under the Old Testament and accordingly tho' Abraham believed and solemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised yet I hope they will not say that God acted foolishly in commanding Isaac c. to be Circumcised before he understood the ends of Circumcision or could believe much less make profession of his Belief He was entered Sacramentally into Covenant with God before he was able to recontract or understand what the condition of the Covenant was
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 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