Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
there is no doubt but they may be composed with the same advantage of expression and pronounced with the same affection as the Prayers of our own extempore composure and if they are so they will have the same advantage of the musick of speech to excite the Devotions of the People but as for novelty of method and expression that may indeed entertain their minds and divert them from roving out to other objects but even this entertainment is a roving and excursion of their minds from the acts of Prayer which while they are amused with the novelty of the phrase and method of the Prayer can be no more intent on the devotion of it than while they are busied about secular objects and affairs And indeed that seeming devotion that is raised in the minds of the People by the gingling of the Ministers words about their fancies is generally false and counterfeit for as words do naturally impress the fancy so the fancy doth naturally excite the sensitive affections so that when the affections are excited meerly by the art and musick of the words of Prayer it is not Devotion but Mechanism for there is no doubt but men may be and many times are strangely affected with the words of Prayer when they have not the least spark of true devotion to the matter of it for when they fancy the matter of Prayer and are affected with it meerly for the sake of the words the movement of their affection will cease as soon as the impression is worn out which the words make upon their fancies and if in the mean time they happen to hear any other matter exprest in the same affectionate words they will in all probability be as much affected with it as they are now with the matter of Prayer but if the mind be truly devout and doth affect the matter of Prayer for it self and not for the sake of the words I cannot imagin how new words should any way advantage its devotion unless they were to express new matter Since therefore the matter of publick Prayer neither is nor ought to be new unless it be upon extraordinary publick emergencies what colour of reason can there be assign'd why the devotion of the hearers should be more affected with it in new words than in old supposing it be express'd and pronounc'd with the same propriety and affection in both And thus I have shewn that those advantages of publick Devotion which are pretended to be peculiar to conceiv'd Prayers are for the most part imaginary and that so far forth as they are real they are more peculiar to Forms of Prayer I proceed to the third and last enquiry viz. 3. Whether there are not sundry advantages of publick Devotion peculiar to Forms of Prayer which conceived Prayers cannot pretend to That there are I do affirm and will indeavour to prove by these following Instances 1. One great advantage that is peculiar to publick Forms of Prayer is That the People may address themselves to them with greater preparation for if they please they may peruse the words before-hand and consider the sense and matter of them and indeavour to affect their minds with it as for instance when I know before-hand what words my sins will be confest in when I am to joyn in the publick Devotions I can consider before-hand the sense and meaning of them and prepare such affections as are sutable to them as suppose the confession be that of our Church's Liturgy wherein we begin with Almighty and most merciful Father I can consider the meaning of these words before I come to Church and from the consideration of God's almighty and most merciful nature excite my affections to an awful dread of his power and an ingenuous sense of his mercy by which when I come to joyn with these words in the publick confession I shall be duely affected with the sense of them and my soul will be ready melted into all that filial sorrow and humiliation for my sin which the consideration that I have offended by it an Almighty and most merciful Father suggests and so if I consider and apply before-hand all the rest of the confession I shall thereby tune and set my affections to the sense and matter of each particular phrase and expression in it which 't will be impossible for me to do when I am to joyn with an extempore Prayer because I cannot know before-hand what the phrases and expressions of it will be besides which upon the words of publick Forms there may be written excellent Paraphrases and Meditations such as is that of the Companion to the Temple by reading of which the Devotions of the People may be very much excited and improved which is such an advantage as the words of extempore Prayer will not admit of 2. Another advantage peculiar to publick Forms is That in joining with them the People may pray with more understanding than they can well be supposed to do in conceiv'd and extempore Prayer wherein generally the Minister is forc'd to make use of such words and expressions as come first to hand having not leisure enough to pick and choose his words without making long and undecent pauses and interruptions so that sometimes he is fain to use a hard word which perhaps not half the People understand because an easier doth not come to his mind and sometimes to intangle his expressions with long Parentheses sometimes to darken his matter with far fetch'd Metaphors or to express it by halfs in broken Sentences and sometimes to run out his Periods to an inordinate length by which the sense of them is very much clouded and obscur'd these and such like inconveniences all the World knows do very commonly attend extempore Effusions and let a mans fancy and tongue be never so fluent and voluble he can never be so secure of expressing himself intelligibly to the People when he prayers extempore as he might be if he took time enough before-hand to choose his words and form his expressions so that the People may be much more secure of understanding what they pray for when they joyn with a Form than when they joyn with an extempore Prayer for to be sure in composing publick Forms more care will be taken of the phrase that the words may fit the matter and express it intelligibly to the People than there can be in extempore Prayer which admits of no long consideration no alteration upon second thoughts no after-scanning or revisal as Forms of Prayer do but it must pass as it happens whether it be intelligible or no by reason of which those who occupy the room of the unlearned are many times forc'd to break off praying for want of understanding what the words and expressions of the Prayer mean for whether the Prayer be spoken in an unknown Tongue or in words that are unintelligible to the People it is all one to them for still their understanding is unfruitful and so long their devotion must
have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house c. Look down from thy holy habitation from heaven and bless thy people Israel and the land which thou hast given unto us as thou swarest unto our fathers the land that flows with milk and honey And as God injoyn'd them these and such-like Forms for particular occasions so David by inspiration from God appointed them the Book of Psalms for their Publick Service for so in the Titles we find several of them particularly recommended to the Choires of the Priests and Levites for parts of their Vocal Service some to the Sons of Korah others to Asaph others to Jeduthun and a great many to the Master of the Musick And though others have no title at all as particularly the 96th and 105th yet 1 Chron. 16. 7. we find that they were deliver'd by David into the hands of Asaph and his brethren for Forms of Praise and Thanksgiving to God and accordingly 2 Chron. 29. 30. we are told that Hezekiah the King commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the seer And this Liturgy was renew'd by Ezra at the laying the Foundations of the second Temple for so Ezra 3. 10 11. the Priests and Levites were order'd to praise the Lord after the Ordinance of David King of Israel and accordingly they sung together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord because he is good for his mercy endureth for ever towards Israel And besides all these instances of Forms of Prayer appointed by God in the Old Testament we have a very considerable one in the New and that is the Lord's Prayer which in Luke 11. 2. our Saviour thus prescribes When ye pray say Our Father c. in which he doth as expresly injoyn them the using of that Form of words as was possible for him to do in any humane Language for if he had said When ye pray say or use this Form of words it could not have been more expressive of his intention to impose it as a Form than his bidding them when they pray'd to say Our Father And if we will not admit that to be the sence of a Text which the words of it do as plainly signifie as they could have done if it were we have no way to determine the sence of any Scripture but may eternally play upon the plainest words of it with quirks of wit and fancy But it is objected by our Brethren That in Matth. 6. 9. where our Saviour also delivers this Prayer to the Disciples instead of bidding them say Our Father he onely bids them pray after this manner Our Father c. which is a plain argument say they that he gave it to them not as a Form but as a Pattern and Directory of Prayer To which I answer 1. That where the same matter is mention'd ambiguously in one Text and plainly and expresly in another it 's a necessary rule of interpretation that the sence of the doubtful and ambiguous Text should be determin'd by the words of the plain and express Text. Now it 's plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray thus is of a doubtful signification and may as well denote Pray in these words as after this Pattern and Direction and he who is bid to pray thus obeys the command whether he prays for the same things in others or in the same words so that had our Saviour express'd himself in no other words but these it might have been doubtful whether he meant to prescribe it as a Form or as a Directory of Prayer but say Our Father is plainly and expresly say these words Our Father and he who is bid to say such words disobeys the command though he should say the same thing in other words so that had our Saviour express'd himself in no other words but these there could have been no doubt but that his meaning was to prescribe those words for a Form of Prayer unless we could have supposed that by this Injunction say Our Father we are not oblig'd to say Our Father and how could we have supposed that without high presumption had it not been for this pretence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray thus Since therefore pray thus is a doubtful expression it is very reasonable it should be interpreted by say Our Father which is a plain and determinate one and if so the sense of both must be this When ye pray use this Form of words which I here prescribe you Our Father c. 2ly I answer that our Saviour gave not this Prayer to his Disciples after the manner of a Directory but after the manner of a Form of Prayer had he given it to them meerly as a direction what they were to pray for in all probability he would have exprest himself after another manner and instead of bidding them say Our Father or pray thus Our Father he would have bid them call upon God by the Name of their heavenly Father and beseech him to cause his Name to be glorified and hallowed in the World and his Kingdom to spread and advance c. instead of which he gives them a form'd Prayer and bids them say it And therefore since he gave it to them after the manner of a Form and not after the manner of a Directory and since we may reasonably suppose that he intended they should use it after the same manner in which he gave it it follows that he gave it to them to be used as a Form and not meerly as a Pattern or Directory 3 ly I answer That supposing that when he bid them pray thus in the sixth of St. Matthew he prescrib'd it onely as a Directory for Prayer yet it doth not follow but that when he bad them say Our Father in the 11th of Luke he might prescribe it as a Form because it is not the same prescription in both but different and given them at a different time and upon a different occasion the first was given them in the Sermon upon the Mount and in the second year after his Baptism the second was given them upon their own request after he had done praying and in the third year after his Baptism and whosoever shall consult both places will soon be convinc'd that the Lords Prayer in St. Luke was delivered at another time and upon a quite different occasion from that in St. Matthew It 's highly probable therefore that the Disciples when 't was delivered in St. Matthew lookt upon it meerly as given 'em by way of a Directory or Copy by which they were to frame and compose their Prayers for if they had thought it given 'em as a Form of Prayer it is not imaginable why they should request him to teach 'em a Form to pray by again when he had taught 'em one before either therefore their request in St. Luke must be very impertinent or it must be to desire him to teach 'em something more
Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * * * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same Principles that these Men do now then I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ But since it is so universal and ancient a practice that no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * * * Ecquid verisimise est tot
probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves Wheâ—her rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * * * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †††Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * * * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * * * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of
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 desâ—gning 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 Receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. Whereas in Baptism the Minister as the immediate agent of Christ by whom he is Authoriz'd and Commissionated in the singular number as in his Name pronounceth it I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost As to what is urg'd above that nothing can be more immediate than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating signification they must know it might have been more immediate either to have plac'd this Sign before Baptism or to have appointed some such form of words in applying it as the Church of Rome doth or if it had been pretended to be of divine Institution and necessary to make the Sacrament of Baptism compleat and perfect And thus I presume I have run through the main debate betwixt us and our dissenting brethren as to this Case Wherein I hope I have neither misrepresented their objections nor let pass any material strength in them nor in replying to them used any one provoking or offensive word Would they but read and weigh this and the other Discourses of this kind with the same calmness of temper and study of mutual agreement wherewith I dare say they have been written I cannot think there would abide upon their Spirits so vehement a desire for the removal of these things but it might rather issue in a peaceable and happy closure in the use of what hath been made appear was so innocently taken up and might with so much advantage under the encouragement of serious and good Men be still retained I do not indeed think any of our Church so fond of this Ceremony particularly but that if the laying it aside might turn to as great Edification in the Church as the serious use of it might be emprov'd to our Governours would easily enough condescend to such an overture Instances of this have been given in our Age and our Presbyterian-Brethren in their Address to the Bishops do own that divers Reverend Bishops and Doctors in a Paper in Print Except
us to observe onely a Feast-Gesture for the due Celebration of it 3. Kneeling is very Comely and Agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper though no Table-Gesture Which I hope will be made evident to every Honest and Unbyassed Mind which Impartially seeks after Truth by these following considerations 1. Kneeling is allowed on all Hands to be a very fit and sutable Gesture for Prayer and Praise and very apt to express our Reverence Humility and Gratitude by and Consequently very fit to be used at the Holy Sacrament and agreeable to its Nature This will appear if we reflect upon what hath been delivered concerning the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper For at the Sacrament we express that by Actions as I hinted before which at other times we do by Words and the Lord's Supper is a Solemn Rite of Christian Worship which implyes Prayer and Praise It includes all the Parts of Prayer By partaking of the Signs of his Body broken and Blood shed for our Sins we do Commemorate Represent and Shew forth to God the Father the Sacrifice which his Dearly Beloved Son made upon the Cross we Feast upon the memorials of the great Sin-Offering And in so doing we make an open Confession and Acknowledgment of our Guilt and Unworthiness to God and we plead with him in the Vertue of his Sons Blood which was shed for us for the Pardon and Remission of all our Sins We further Humbly entreat him to be Propitious and Favourable to us and to bestow upon us all those benefits which our Lord purchased with his most Precious Blood We Intercede with him too at the Communion for the whole Church that all our Fellow-Christians and true Members of his Body may Receive Remission of their Sins and all other benefits of his Passion And as Eating and Drinking at his Table is a Visible and Powerful Prayer in the sight of God so it is a Visible Act of Praise and Thanksgiving whereby we let our Heavenly Father see that we retain a deep and lively sense of his Unexpressible Love in sending his onely begotten Son into the World to Dye for us that we might Live through him And that which enlivens our Faith and emboldens our hopes of finding Favour and Acceptance at his Hands at this time above others is this viz. Our Prayers and Praises are not onely put up in the Name of Christ but presented and as it were Writ in his Blood and offered to God over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice All this our Actions signify and speak when we Eat the Consecrated Bread and Drink the Cup of Blessing at the Lord's Table If therefore these things be True and I think no body who understands what he doth when he partakes of the Lord's Supper will gainsay it then Kneeling must be judged as fitting and convenient to be used at such a time when we signify our desires and affections by external Rites and Ceremonies of Gods appointment as when we do it by Words that is when we say our Prayers 2. Our Dissenting Brethren and all good Christians will Grant that our Blessed Saviour ought to be Worshipt and Adored by all worthy Communicants inwardly in their Hearts and Souls when they Receive the Tokens and Pledges of his tender and exceeding great Love in laying down his Life for the Sins of the whole World And if so then whatsoever is very apt and meet to express the inward esteem and veneration of our minds by can't be thought Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper Because that is a Religious Feast Instituted in Honour of our Lord and is a Solemn Act of Christian Worship performed to our Crucified Saviour Our meeting together at thâ—s Holy Feast in Obedience to his Commands to Commemorate his Death and tell of all his wondrous Works perpetuate the fame of our great Benefactor as much as in us lyes throughout all Ages is an External mark of the Honour and respect we bear towards him in our minds and is properly speaking that which we call Publick Worship Since to Bow our Knees then is allowed to be a proper mode of publick Worship and an External Sign of Reverence why should an adoring posture be thought Unmeet and Unsutable to the Sacrament which in its nature imports Worship and Adoration 3. No good Christian of what Party or Perswasion soever will deny but that to lift our Hands and Eyes to Heaven and to Employ our Tongues in Uttering the Praises of our Blessed Redeemer even in the Act of Receiving is very agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament why then should Kneeling be thought Unsutable which is no more but onely Glorifying God and our Blessed Saviour with another part of our Body Why should the Gesture be scrupled at more than the Voice or the Bowing of my Knees be esteemed incongruous and unfitting any more than moving my Tongue or raising my Hands and Eyes to Heaven Especially if we consider that the high degree of Honour and Glory to which our Lord is advanced in the Heavens by God the Father as the reward of his Humble and Submissive Obedience here on Earth challenges from us all manner of Respect and Reverence both of Soul and Body He Humbled himself and became Obedient unto Death even the Death of the Cross Wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name that at the Name of Jesus Phil. 2. 8 9 10 11. every Knee should Bow c. and that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in Remembrance of our Blessed Saviours Death and Sufferings And therefore I request all our Dissenting Brethren to Consult one place of Scripture concerning our Saviours Bodily Gesture or Deportment in the Heat and Extremity of his Passion wherein he presented himself before his Father in his Agony and Bloody Sweat in the Garden Being in an Agony he offered up this Prayer to his Father If thou be willing remove this Cup from Luke 22. 42 44. me Nevertheless not my Will but thine be done But after what manner or in what Gesture of Body did his perplexed Soul utter these earnest Supplications Why Kneeling or fixing his Knees upon the Earth Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 41. we may remember and meditate on our Saviours Sufferings in the Garden when his Soul was so exceeding Sorrowful when he was reduced to such a Weak and low Estate as to stand in need of Comfort and Support from an Angel though I say this may be done Sitting Ver. 43. yet sure no Sober and Considering Mind will say that to Celebrate the Memory of these Sufferings with bended Knees as his were on the Earth is an Improper and Unsutable behaviour to be used at the Sacrament where our proper work is to Commemorate the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour and particularly these among