part much less a substantial part of Worship I know not how this answereth the Argument or to what end it is brought for the Argument speaketh of a Sign dedicating us to the Redeemer the answer of one mans duty to another I also wonder that the Dr. who a little above confounded a real and substantial part of VVorship should distinguish between some part of it which is all one with a real part and a substantial part For further Answer the Dr. distinguisheth a three-fold Sign 1. Representing Gods Grace to us as Sacraments 2. Representing mens subjection to God these are parts of Worship 3. Signs from men to men to represâ—nt some other thing beside the bare Action and these are significant Ceremonies such as is the Cross in Baptism He saith that after the child is Baptised the Cross is used in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified This sign is made not to God even as the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross as a declarative sign to man it in Baptism representeth the Duty not the Grace that is ours and we appoint the sign for it this God's and he must appoint the sign for it Sect. 16. To this his Answer I repone 1. Sacraments do not only represent Gods Grace to us but our Duty to him for they are Seals of the Covenant and the Covenant is mutual containing a Promise of Grace from God and our duty to Him wherefore a Sacrament as it Sealeth both doth also Represent both I wonder that the Learned Dr. for the sake of a few paultery Ceremonies should thus mangle the use of the Sacraments of the New Testament when he cannot otherwise defend these Ceremonies but what will not men do or say to serve a design 2. Signs representing our Duty to God are parts of Worship he acknowledgeth he meaneth representing to God that which is our Duty Now the Dr. should have told us what are these Signs that represent our Duty to God it is like he meaneth Prayer Praises and such like but these do not so much represent to God our Duty as offer it or pay it to him when I pay money to a man that I owed him this is not a sign representing the mony to him which is his due but a giving of it to him And indeed we cannot without a very unfit Catachresis be said to represent to God by a sign what is our Duty For Signum as Augustine defineth it est res praeter speciem quam sensibus ingerit aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cognitionem venire And all acknowledge that it is essential to the notion of a sign to bring one to the knowledge of somewhat which cannot be applyed to God who knoweth all things actually and intuitively at all times beside that a sign is a sensible thing and Senses are not to be ascribed to God and therefore God knoweth not any thing by signs Sect. 17. 3. His thoughts seem to run very muddy in managing this distinction especially in explaining the third member of it Signs from men to men representing some other thing than the bare Action VVhat meaneth he by this last Clause do not all Signs represent somewhat beside the bare Action or beside themselves so that he here describeth his third Member of his distinction by the general notion of the thing distinguished which is a great error in Logick 4. Signs are rather to be distinguished by their Original which giveth them a signification or maketh them representative than by the persons to whom they hold forth what they signify for every Sign doth represent the thing signified by it to all that can discern Hence all who treat of Signs use to distinguish them in natural customary and instituted as having their power to signify or represent somewhat either from their nature or from custom or from institution or they will of the Imposer of the signification and this last sort they make to be Divine when they are appointed by God for their use of signifying or representing somewhat or Humane when they are appointed by man. This distinction of Signs giveth some light but I know no use of the Drs. new Coined distinction but to confound the matter and serve a design Now the Sacraments are Signs instituted by God to represent his Grace and our Engagement and this is represented to our selves and to all the world the other duties wherein we express our subjection to and dependance on God before all the world and offer up our acknowledgments of these to him these are also appointed by him and so are parts of VVorship that are acceptable to him for the Ceremonies they are meerly humane Signs appointed by man and therefore they are not acceptable VVorship but that they are parts of VVorship is not from their Original but from the Religious state that they are placed in they are Solemn Actions done in and with the Solemn VVorship of God and so appropriated to it as that they are not done but in it they have all that could make an external act of VVorship except Divine institution they are designed for the same uses with true VVorship viz. Honouring God and Edifying Men. On these Accounts they are to be accounted parts of VVorship and want of God's appointment doth not hinder that otherwise there could be no false VVorship neither can their signifying to man what they do signify hinder it for the true VVorship of God doth that as hath been said Sect. 18. 5. The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this that the Cross is used after Baptism but he will not deny 1. That it is used immediately after it or rather conjoyned with it as near as two actions can be to one another Nor 2. VVill he deny that it is included in and not used after the complex action of Baptism which taketh in Instruction about the nature of Baptism Prayer and Thanksgiving it is not after all this and so it is stated in and mixed with this solemn piece of Religious VVorship and therefore must be a religious thing it cannot possibly be a civil right under such circumstances 6. It was to no purpose to mention here the Antients use of the sign of the Cross for that was in War or other civil Actions which could have no appearance of making it a Religious Ceremony 7. That the Cross in Baptism representeth the Duty and not the Grace of Subjection to the Redeemer doth not hinder it to be a Sacramental Sign though we never thought it a Sign of Grace as the Sacraments are for Sacraments represent also our Duty as hath been shewed and its being so conjoyned with the Sacrament maketh a shew as if men would by it represent that Grace by which we must subject our selves to the Redeemer which yet they cannot do VVhen men take upon them to add a new Sign to the Sacramental Sign instituted by Christ for representing the one half
of what is represented by Christ's Sign viz. one part of the Covenant there sealed which is subjection to and owning of the Redeemer and put this their sign in the same Religious state with Christ's Sign so as there is no difference between them but the Authority by which they are instituted it may be warrantably said that they make a Sacramental Sign and that they make a new Sacrament as far as man can make it 8. That we may devise a Sign to represent the Duty in Baptism because the Duty is ours as God appointeth the Sign to represent the Grace because that is his is a strange assertion for that is to allow man an equal share with God in instituting a Sacrament in which both the Grace of God and the Duty of Man or his engagement to his Duty are sealed and represented If Ceremonies must have such Divinity to defend them I shall be less in love with them than before Sect. 19. He denyeth p. 349. that the Cross in Baptism is intended by the Church as a Sign of immediate Dedication to God but of Obligation on the person and laboureth to clear the thirtieth Canon asserting the contrary which saith that by it the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died on the Cross. VVhat he saith for vindicating this Canon is that Baptism is compleat before Crossing and so it is no part of Baptismal dedication and that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ but signeth with the Cross in the name of the Church who by that Rite receiveth the Infant into their number and thus understanding the use of the Cross he saith all the difficulties about dedicating covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Signs will appear to be of no force Answer 1. The Dr. would say something by mentioning Immediate Dâ—dication and if what he intendeth by it be to the purpose it must be that the Church may not institute a Sign whereby one is Immediately dedicated to God but they may institute one whereby he is Immediately dedicated to God Now if the Dr. had given any hint of a ground for this distinction or to shew that the one is more lawful than the other he would have obliged us but that not being done his implyed distinction is to be rejected as without all ground 2. A Sign of Obligation of the Person to dedicate himself to the Redeemer used in a piece of Gods solemn Worship and appropriated to that Worship is by its Signification its End its concomitant Circumstances so stated as the using of that Sign cannot but be a Religious Act and so a part of God's VVorship which as the Dr. himself confesseth needeth Divine Institution and cannot lawfully be appointed by the Church 3. I wonder why the Dr. should endeavour to vindicate that Canon that he citeth from meaning what it expresly saith viz. that by the sign of the Cross the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who Died on the Cross it is impossible to shun expounding this of a dedicating Sign without doing the greatest violence Imaginable to the plain words neither is there the least shadow of ground to think that Immediate dedication is not here meant seeing the Infant is said to be dedicated by this Sign without the least hint of any intervenient dedicating sign or cause between the sign and that which the Dr. will call Immediate Dedication 4. VVhen he saith the Crâ—ssing is no part of Baptismal dedication the meaning must be it is not a part of Dâ—dication by that Sign that Christ appointed viz. Baptising in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost none doubteth of that but how doth this shew that it is no dedicating sign as the Canon saith or no immediate dedicating sign as the Dr. alledgeth It is a sign devised by men to dedicate the Infant added to the sign appointed by God for the same end Now our Question is VVhat warrant have men for making such an Addition to so great an Ordinance of God 5. The next thing for vindicating the Canon is that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ but Signeth in the Name of the Church is as little for his purpose for who gave the Church Power to Institute a dedicating Sign to be Administer'd in her name and set it up by Christ's dedicating Sign to be Administer'd in his Name This seemeth to be an addition to Christ's Ordinance and a reflection on it as imperfect as if the Child were not sufficiently dedicated to the Redeemer by Christ's Sign that he hath Instituted for that End. 6. It doth least of all vindicate the Canon which he addeth to wit that by it the sign of the Cross the Church receiveth the Infant into their number for this is a quite other thing than the Canon saith and to make that the meaning of the Canon is to take a liberty to impose what meaning upon it he pleaseth Let the Reader now judge whether by any thing that he hath said all the difficulties about Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental signs do appear to be of no force Sect. 20. He asketh page 350. Why may not the Church appoint such a rite of admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Answer The Church hath not appointed it as a rite of admission of a Member but a rite of dedicating the Person to Christ as hath been shewed And the reason why he may not do it is because Christ hath already done it sufficiently He hath appointed Baptism both for dedicating the Person to himself and for admitting him into his Church Therefore men ought not to contrive their signs for that end which he hath abundantly provided for by his own means Another reason why this may not be done is because this sign is so stated in the Word of God by being done in the Solemn Exercise of it for a Religious end and appropriated to this Religious Exercise that it cannot be otherwise lookt on than as a piece of Gods Worship He parallelleth this with holding up the hand in an Independent-Church presently after Baptism as a sign of admission into that particular Church Answer 1. I know no warrant for such an admitting rite Baptism is sufficient to make one a Member of Christs Church and that maketh one a Member of any particular Church where Providence casteth his lot 2. If Independents should state this admitting rite in the very Solemnity of Baptism before the complex action be finished they were to be blamed but they do not so they make an observable difference as to time and other circumstances between these two actions 3. Signing with the Cross is not a meer admitting sign into a particular Church as shall afterward be discoursed but also a dedicating sign as the Canon expresly saith and therefore this parallel is null Sect. 21. He next blameth Mr. B. for supposing that the Minister signing the Child speaketh in the Name of Christ or as his Officer and
saith it is evident that he doth it in the Name of the Church because he saith We receive him into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him c. Answer It is not material to our debate which of the Two be said for the question is Whether the Church hath power to appoint a sign for dedicating a person to Christ when he hath already appointed a sign for that end We desire to see a warrant for the Churches appointing Dedication to Christ by her sign to be done in her name after the person is already dedicated by Christs sign and in His name If he say the Church only appoints him to be received by this sign into her number and that may be done in her name I answer by Christs sign that is also done by Baptism the person is admitted as a Member of Christs Flock But beside this it is evident that by the sign of the Cross is not intended bare admission as a Member of the Church but dedicating of the person to Christ not only from the plain words of the Canon of which already but by what followeth in the words used at the signing which are We receive him into the number of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Souldier and Servant unto his lives end Amen Will any man say that this is meer admission as a Member of the Church or into the Church of England and that no more is intended by these words Is it not made a sign of our Covenant or Engagement to the same duties that we are engaged to by Baptism To wit all the duties that the Covenant of grace bringeth us under the Obligation of The absurdity of this notion to wit that Crossing is meerly an admitting sign will yet further appear if we consider that in the same office of Baptism used by the Church of England the Minister having put the God-fathers in mind of Christs promise to the Infant to be baptised he is to say Wherefore after this promise made by Christ these Infants must also faithfully for their part promise by you that be their sureties that they will forsake the Devil and all his works and constantly believe Gods Holy Word and obediently keep his Commandments This is the baptismal Dedication I hope that will not be denied Now is not the Cross used to betoken our obligation to the very same things And therefore it must be a dedicating Sign as well as Baptism And it may as well be said that Baptism is meerly a rite of admission into the Church as that is such Sect. 22. He telleth us page 351. that all publick admissions into Societies have some Ceremonie belonging to them That we deny not and therefore Christ hath made Baptism the Ceremony for Solemn admitting the Members of his Church which he having done how dare any take upon them to invent new rites for that end As Baptism saith the Doctor is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so is the sign of the Cross into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used withâ—ut prescribing to other Churches This now is the fine new Notion for the sake of which all the foregoing discourse is designed The Dr. deserveth the honour of inventing it for I do not find that ever any had thought of it before But I doubt it will prove but a Mouse brought forth by the long labour and hard throws of a Mountain I shall here remind the Reader of what I have observed already Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. that by this one Notion the Dr. destroyeth the great design of his Book which is to charge them with separation most of whom he here doth implicitely and by necessary consequence acknowledge never to have been Members of the Church of England they never having been signed with the Cross For if they never were Members they were not capable of separation more than another Mans Leg can be said to be cut off from my body to which it never was united 2. This to be the use of the sign of the Cross was never declared by the Church but the quite contrary as is evident from what is already cited both out of the Thirtieth Canon and out of the Office of Baptism both which are the authentick Writings of the Church wherefore this is to be lookt on as but one Doctors Opinion and we are to take the scope and meaning of the Churches Ceremonies from her own declaration and not from the thoughts of any one man when he is streightned in defending of these rites 3. I ask the Dr. if we who never were yet signed with the Cross should be willing now to join as Members of the Church and to submit to all her terms of Communion whether must we be signed with the Cross at our admission The same may be enquired concerning any Baptized in France Scotland or any other Church I suppose he will not own such Crossing I am sure it was never heard of if he say it is not to be done How do these become Members of the Church The Independents will require some token of owning their Church-Covenant even where it is not joined with Baptism why then do not the Church of England for the Dr. parallelleth these two admissions into the Church require this Crossing out of Baptism if it be meerly a sign of admission into the Church of England 4. If the Church and the Dr. too and all the Divines that Write in defence of the Church would declare never so often that this is the use and the only use of Crossing all this could not satisfy as long as the words used with it and the Religious State in which it is by their practice sixed do make the contrary apparent Sect. 23. Mr. Bs. allowing some Religious use of the sign of the Cross his Brethren do not approve yet his argument is good against the use of the Cross as a dedicating or common professing sign of Baptized Persons to wit that God hath appointed Sacraments for that end Then the Dr. answereth True but not only for that end but to be means and instruments of conveying grace to men for which God oâ—ly ought to appoint means Reply 1. It is not enough that men do not appoint other means beside Christs for all the ends that they are appointed for but they ought not to appoint other means for any of these ends because Christs means are sufficient for all the ends that they are appointed for Sacraments are not only sufficient to signify Gods promise of giving grace but also to signify our engagement to perform duty Wherefore we ought not to add new signs for the one more than for the other 2. The sign of the Cross is intended as a
less imposed All the question is about the use of Sponsers in the Baptism of Infants for the adult are to undertake for themselves Some make the use of God-fathers to be witnesses of the Childs-Baptism That is very needless for the whole Church are witnesses of that The true use of them is to represent the Child as a party covenanting with God in this Solemn Sealing of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Infant and consequential to this to undertake the instruction and education of the Child in the Christian Religion and endeavouring to engage him to a personal owning of the Covenant The original of other Sponsors beside the Parents was in the Primitive Church many young ones either born of Heathen-Parents or Orphans of Christian-Parents falling into the Tuition of Heathen-Relations in reference to their worldly concerns were in hazard by that means to be bred in Heathenism Wherefore it was judged needful that some faithful and intelligent Christian should undertake for their Religious Education This usage which reason had first brought in ostentation did afterward enlarge by multiplying God-fathers and God-mothers and after that Superstition did perverâ— it by excluding the Parents and putting strangers in their room till at last in Popery it was quite depraved by making a spiritual kindred to result from this action Wherefore we do not deny the use of Sponsors but think the Parents the most proper Sponsors both on account of their opportunity obligation and natural inclination to do the office of a Sponsor for the Child which may rationally be thought to be more in them than in a stranger and we think it a gross abuse to admit of other Sponsors except in the want of Parents or their Inhability I think also considering things as they are not barely in the notions that men have of things that they will defend this practice is fallen into such abuse that even that should make it be laid aside for it is manifest and most common that God-fathers and God-mothers are chosen most unqualified for and most unconcerned in that which they make a solemn promise to God to perform which is a horrid mocking of Him and his Ordinances Are not Boys and Girls chosen or Debauched and Ignorant Persons or Strangers that may be shall never see the Child again nor mind it except it be to send it a new Coat Sect. 9. The Dr. telleth us of Mr. Cartwright yea and all Protestant Churches approving of this But will he say that they are for Excluding the Parents which is the very thing that we controvert For as the Dr. confesseth Can. 29. Ordaineth That Parents need not be Present and that they shall not be admitted to Answer that is they must not undertake for the instruction and education of their own Child But saith he The Parents are to provide such as are Fit. I desire to know what Warrant is for this even from sound reason Who can be so Fit by his opportunity and care as the Parent And if he be wholly unfit as to understanding and respect to true Religion we are not against his having a Deputy in that Case that it is done with the Parents consent is better so than otherwise but that the Parent can transfer his right to another is without all reason unless the Person to whom such a Translation is made do really take the education of the Child which though by a private compact between the Parent and Sponsor might be done yet what shadow of reason can be for a Canon compelling every Parent to do it It is saith he but like an occasion of absence to wit of the Parent in which case all allow of a Sponsor Ans. It is no way like it for the one hath necessity to warrant it the other hath nothing but mens will or superstitious conceit Is it alike for the State to make a Law that neighbours should feed and cloath the Orphans of poor Parents and to make a Law that they shall feed and cloath the Children of their rich Neighbours who are alive The case is just so here It is an injury to a man to have his Child taken from him without a cause and given to another to be educated so it is to be obliged yea forced to transfer upon another all that right he hath to represent his own child and to engage for his education He saith it is not the Churches intention to supersede the obligation of the Parent but to superinduce a further obligation upon other Persons Had the Parent been permitted to undertake for the Child jointly with the Sponsors there had been some colour for this assertion but that being expresly denied by the Canon it is evident that the Church doth what she can to make the Parent think that no obligation at all lyeth on him I meddle not with his debate against Mr. B. about Mr. B's Argument against Sponsors from the Childs having right to Baptism only from the Parents many learned men differ from Mr. B. in that and I shall not digress to dispute it Sect. 10. The Dr. pag. 386. saith he findeth nothing particularly objected against Kneeling at the Communion that deserveth consideration which he hath not answered in another place to wit Conferences First Part which Book I have not seen wherefore I shall in a few words lay down our Ground of Scrupling that Practice and so leave it We do not scruple Kneeling at Prayer which is joyned with receiving of that Sacrament nor do we deny that all possible reverence should be used in going about that Holy Ordinance but we think the expression of that Reverence should be of Gods appointing in his Word or grounded on Nature or civil Custom and not instituted by mans Will. 1. Then we scruple it because it is an uncommanded Act of Worship that it is Worship I think will not be denyed Kneeling in Prayer cannot be denyed to be an Act of external Worship no more than this That it is uncommanded we must believe till they shew us a Command for it They alledge that Kneeling being unquestionable a fit gesture to express Humility and Adoration it cannot be unfit but needful in this Case where both are required To this I reply Humility is not fitly expressed by Kneeling though Adoration be and therefore we think Kneeling in the Act of Receiving to be no fit gesture because Adoreing however needful it be in the complex Action of Communicating to wit before and after Receiving the Elements it is not the Souls work in that Act Believing or Covenanting with God is the proper Exercise of the Soul in that Act which is a solemn sealing of the Covenant and this Covenanting is very unfitly expressed by Kneeling He that is about solemn Prayer or Adoration which might be well expressed by Kneeling in the Act of receiving that Sacrament doth little know or consider the nature and use of it whence I form our Argument thus that Religious Gesture which is neither