Some considerations on the sixth chapter of the abridgement of the London cases : containing a vindication of the office for baptism, and particularly of the sign of the cross

I

.915

^<^B

':^. r-*'

/

Ql

.55

1

/?

In
3

^

J5

^hl^

IE

i^ hi

Q-

1

^^

'^5 izi

o

; 1

tli

5

"S g

<u

c

. ■ • - " ;

t^ o

bO

rs

.S &H

<t .

^

l^ 8

|Zi

E

.Oj

O M

f'j

•»2

^ PCi

C/)

1^

^

C§

O

^

§

^

-T3

=^'

'^

^

^

0)

^

ci:

1 '

(i

/

i

SOME

CONSIDERATIONS

On the

Sixth Chapter.

Of The

Abridgement

Of th;

iConDon Cafes :

Containing, A

VINDICATION

Of the

Office for 'Baplifm,

And Particularly of the

Sign of the Crois.

By JAMES^PEIKCE

LONDON :

Printed for J. harvrence^ at the Angel
in the Poultry. 1708.

THE :'A

PREFACE^

IT Seews very plain and ohvicus^ Thitt
they who in/pofe any Terms ofCowmpf-
nion upon either Minijters or People^
are bound to give a full and clear Account of
thefc Three things : Firft, The Lawfnlnefs
of the things impojed^ that fo they whofub-
Tffit to them^ may do it -with an entire Sa*
tkfaHion^ and p/ ay be free from aWUnea-
finefs and Perplexity in reflecting upon their
Pradice, Secondly, The Dfefnlnefs of
the things intpofed 5 for things Lawful may
not he Expedient ^ and for' Edification,
Thirdly, Their ojvn Authority to intpofe
them 3 for it is very poffible^ that Lawful
things may be impofed by thofi who have no
Power to impofe them ^ and whoever does
innovate in the Church of God^ and intro-
duce and impofe Cufioms^ of which we have
no Footjleps in the Holy Scriptures^ and
does not at the fame time produce fuch a
Seal of his Commifjion from God as our
Lord did, may very jujily be a^k^ed that
A 2 ^efiion^

The Preface-

Math. 21. ^efiion^ By what authority doft thou
*3« thefe things ? and who gave thee this

authority ? Tillthefi ' three things are well
cleared. I cannot fee that either Minifters
OP People are hound to obey the Iwpofers 5
or that they have any thing more to do^ than
to weigh the Strength ofthofe Arguments
which the Impofers do aUedge in their own
Behalf y and to anfwer them : But in the
Management of the chief Contr over fy before
uf^ thefe things feem to be firangely over-
lool(d.

2 he Author feems to take it for granted:^
That the Impofers have Authority for what
they Jo : He aUedges not any thhtg in the
Ceremony of the Grofs, that carries in
it any tolerable Appearance ofTJfeftdnefs :
The only thing he aims at is tofljcWy That
the Sign of the Crofs is not proved Un-
lawful by two or three Obje&ions that are
made again ft it : So that if a Man J/jould
ask, thofe plain ^eflions^ Cui bono > and
Qiio jure ? To what good Purpofe ^ and
by what Right are thefe Ceremonies impo-
fed .<? he muf: (for ought I can fi fid in the
Cafe)heJlH!t0feekforanAnfiver. One
great part of his-. Defence con0s of Citati-
ons from the Fathers^ concerning the Cujlom
of ancient times :, and herein 1 have thought
my felf obliged to follow him^ and mull c on-
fefs^ that it is no fmall Satis fa^ion to me^

to

The Preface.

to find that this Ctremony was not ufed in
Baptifm in the moB Primitive^ that *f,
the befi Ages of the Church 5 that it was
not ufed till the Purity of the Church began
to be Ecclipfed^ by her Temporal Prefer-
ment : But I am fenfihle^ that a great part
of the Cafe, and of this Jnfwer to it^ will
be loii, with reference to thofe who look^for
their Religion only in their Bibles, and who
have not Ability or Opportunity to inquire
into the Opinions and PraBices of thofe
that lived in ancient times. I have fol-
lowed the Abridgement, rather than the
Cafe it felf '^ and therein 1 have lonfulted
not only my own eafe, but the Readers too 5
for probably my Difcourfe would have other-
wife been more faulty in length than it is
already. I have (for the Reafon I hinted
before) confined my f elf to the C on fi dera-
tion of my Author s Arguments^ and have
forborn to fart any new ones , and this Me-
thod I thought I had the more Right to ufe,
confidering who is the Aggreffour, But
there is one thing that is but lightly
touched here and there in the following Dif-
courfe^ that deferves to have more particular
notice taken of it here, and that is, how
far the Laity are concerned in this Ceremo-
ny ^ and whether there be not jusi caufefor
them to fcrupU Lay-Con foYmity in this
point,

A i A

The Preface.

A wide Drfferenct has been made^ ie-
farce« Min/Jlerial and Laf- Conformity 5
bnt perhaps^ if the Foundation of thai Dif-
ference be carefully examined^ it wiO not
appear to he fo folid as fome have ivtaft'
ned. A Lay-man^ that obferves that the
Fajlors of the Church here among m are di-
vided into Nonconformifis and Confor-
mijls^ and that would refolve himfelf vpho
are the moB rightful Pafiors to whom he
ought fiatedly to adhere^ is bound to con-
fider the Merits of the Canfe depending be-
tween them^ and consequently muU examine
the fever al Points of Conformity which are
required of Minifiers ^ and if upon the
whole he fudges that they have juU reafon
to refufe Conformity^ he is- not by any
means to forfake their Minijiry^ howevtr
they may in the difcharge thereof be def^ifed^
perfecHted^ or not incour aged by either Prince
or People : So that it feems plain to me^
That the People are to look upon themfelves
concerned in all the Terms that are impo-
fed upon their Minifiers : But in this
Ceremony of the Croft, / conceive they
are more particularly and immediately con-
cerned.

Let us therefore fuppofe^ That a Lay-m^in
(who is convinced that the ufe of the Crofs
in Baptifm is finful) has a Child to be
Baptized that is in very good Healthy and

concern-

The Preface.

coHcermttg vphom he is not appreken/tve of
any Danger ^ What courfi (hould this Per-
fin take ^ Shall he conform as a Lay-man^
and bring his Child to he Baptised by tbofi
that will not do it without the Addition of
the Sign of rh€ Crofs > Shall it fatisfy that
it is the Minijier (and not he) that fns in
ttfng it ^ What reafon can there he^ why
a Man Jhould have his Child Baptized by
Men vpho will ufe a Ceremony which he
judges pnful^ when he may have him Bap-
tized by others without it ^ Or how can a
Man chufe to have his Child Baptized in a.
way he ejieems fifffid^ and yet thinl^^ himfilf
gHiltkfs .<? And therefore^ fipp^fi^g ^f^^t a
Minijler if the Church (p/England will not
Baptize fuch a ferfons Child without this
Sign, kfeems plain to me^ that he is bound
tofeek, out for fame other Minifier that will.
I kt^ow tJiere are fome Minijiers in th^
Church ^^/'Engla^d, who projfefs they are
xpilling to yield to the Scruples of Parents in
this Matter^ and to Baptize their Children
without the Sign of the Crofs : Butitde-
ferveswellto be confideredy both by Minijiers
and People^ w'hepher this Latitude be allow-
ed them by their Oath of Canonical Obedi-
ence^ and their Subfcription^ wherein they
provtife^ That they will ufe the Form pr^-
fcribcd (in the Boo l^ of Comuion-Prsiy ^t)
in PMci Prayer and Adminijiration of
A 4 Sacra^

The Preiacc.

Sacramtnts^ and no other, Thefe Mini-
fters arc accujed hyfome of their Brethren^
as guilty of no lejs a Crime than Perjury 5
and I confejs^ they fee m to me to he fo re-
firained (by their Oath and Promife^ to
the appointed Form^ as not to he allowed
to make the leaB Alteration in their ufing
it: But perhaps fome may fay ^ There is a
Form for Private Baptifm^ wherein the
. Sign of the Crofs k left out^ and there*
fore a Minijier may Baptize fnch a ones
Child in Private^ according to that Form^
confflently with his Oath and Promtfe :
But the Anfwer to this is obvious 5 For^
I ft. The Form for Private Baptifm is only
to he ufed in cafes of great Necejjity^ as ap*
pears by the Second Ruhrick. before the Of
fice for Private Baptifm:,, What this Ne-
.,C^jJztyis^ is plain ^ by the Sixty- ninth Ca'
\ nvn^ viz. The Infant's W.eaknefs^ or being
in danger of Death '^ and the fame appears
by another Rubricl{ in the Office it felf^
. where we have thefe Words ^ Yet never-
theleis, if the Child which is after this
iort Baptized, DO AFTERWAFvD
LIVE, it is expedient, ^c This ap-
pears likewife by the hafie in which Private
Baptifm is performed ^ let him fay the
Lord's Prayer, (fays the Third Rubric kj

and fo mapy of the Collefts as the

lime and prefent exigence will fuffer :

But

The Preface.

Bht nothing can he wore contrary to the
Orders of the Churchy than for a Minjfler
to Baptize a Childy that k not weak^ or in
danger of Dcuth^ in a Private Honfe :
The Chfirch declares againii thk in Trvo
Rnbricks (viz. the fjrli before Publick^
and the fecond before Private Baptifni)
except in cafes of great Neceffity, It can-
not befaid^ that the Parent's diflil^e of the
Sign of/the Crofs is ever, in the Senfe of
the Churchy a fitfficient canfe of any fuch
Exigence and Necejfity.^ as vpilljtiflify Pri-
vate Baptifm : For it is very plain ^ that
the Church defigned in a very different
wanner to treat thofe who /Jjonld aHedge the
Unlavpfulnefs of this Ceremony^ as a Reafon
againii having their Children publickly Bap-
tized. He that reads the Sixth Canon will
fee^ She is Jo far ^om having any dejign of
Indulgence towards fnch a ont^ that on the
contrary ^She thunders out agatnU him^ Let
him be Excommunicated, //?/i/^^^, and
not be Reftored, until he Repent, and
publickly revoke Tuch his wicked Error.
How then can a Miniver he true to his
Oath of Canonical Obedience^ who treats
thofe with Indulgence ^ whom the Church
treats with Excommunication .<? ^dly,
Where the Form for Private Baptifm is in
the cafe of Veceffity ufcd, it is expeSled by
the Churchy That if the Child do afterward

live.

The Preface.

live^ he fhould he brought to the Churchy and
there be fgned with the Sign of theCrofs.
But 7» the cafe before us, a Minrfier Bap-
tizes the Child without any fuch Necejjity
as the church allows^ and when he knows
for certain^ that he will not he afterwards
brought to the Con^egation according to
the Church's Order : 60 that I confefs^I
cannot fee how a Miniver of the Church of
England can^ confiflently with hh Oath
and Promife^ omit the Sign of the Crofs
in Baptifm, meerly to comply with the Scrn-
pies of the Patent, But now to finijl) this
Matter^ tny Lay-ntans Cajc comes at laH
to thjf Iffhe 5 Whether he [I) all feek Bap-
ttfm for hfs Child ^ of a AUniJier of the
Church (?/ England, who will not admim-
fier it iut in a way which he h convinced is
finful^ or who mu^ violate his Oath and
Promife^ if he does it in a way that he is
fatisfied is in itfelf Lawful : Or whether
he [hall feek^it cf another Mini fier ^ who is
not of the Church of England, and who is
not therefore cramped with any fuch Oath
or Fromife^ and who will do it in a way
in which he is intirely fatisfied .<?

And now I have ftated this Cafe^ I ja^rll
acquaint my Reader, that rtisfo far from
being an imaginary one^ or a wild Suppofi'
tfon^ that it is a Cafe that has actually hap-
pened. Some in con^ant Commnnion

with

The Preface-

nntb the Church ^England, have upon
thefe very Cofffiderdtions thought themfelvef
ohlfgedy not to feek^Baptjfm pr their In-
fants from thofe Minifters^ npon whofe Mi-
nifiry^ in all t/je other farts of it, they have
conjiantly attended, and have fonght it
elfewhere 5 and to theh farther Confidera-
tion ijhall contmend thk one ihing 5 Hovo
they can think themf elves hound to ke in fo
C0nflitni Cdmmunion with a Churchy where-
in they judge that one of the Sacraments is
not adntiniftred with Purity enough for
their own ufe ^ and what reafon they can
have, for not communicating in other things
with thofe Minijiers, the Validity of whofe
Miniftrations, and the Righteoufnefs of
whofe Caufe^ they do by this Pra&ice ac-
knowledge.

This Ceremony has been the occafion of
much Controversy, and has been learnedly
handled by fever al, and particularly by the
Learned Robert Parker, in his Treatife
upon the Sulje& 5 whom I the rather men-
tion, that 1 may tell the Reader, that he
will find many things in him which he will
here meet with 5 feveral of which I freely
own I borrowed from him, though a great
PHiny of them I had ohferved andfet down
in the fir ft rude Draft of thefe Papers^ be-
fore I had had the Happfnefs fo much as to
fee his Learned Piece : They were drawn

up

The Preface*

up ^ prefect ly after the Publiflnng of the
Abridgement, and have lain by ever fence
for fame R,eafons^ which it will not avail
the Reader to know^ and which therefore
he fl)all not be troubled with, I hope it
will appear^ that my Defegn k the Peace of
the Churchy (which is not to be expelled^
till thoje Things are removed which are
matter of Offence) and this Dcfign is, 1
doubt not^ pleafing to GOD^ whatever
Acceptation it jh all meet with from Men.

The

Si ^'^ — 7:- — r-. ,. ▼ .

tc

<

^^

The Sixth Chapter of

the Abridgement of the London
Cafes, which I propofe c<3*con*
fider, is^ Intituled , OhjeBions^
againH our Form of Baptifm^
a?jd particularly that of the Sign
of the Crofs, Anfrvered : And
chefe Gbjeftlons arc ;

I

I. ^f^T/V faid^ That all Baptized l/?fants Abrid^.

are fuppofcd to 1)e Regenerated^ of h^i- 126. ^
whicb^ Jonie think, we cannot be cer-
tain : But fince they are Baptized in-. :
j to Chriji's Body, i Cor. 12, 13. and into \
I Chri/i-^ and have put on Chriji^ Gal. 3 27. and
j conjequently are new Creatures^ 2 Cor. 5-. 17. j
I Since ^ ^ f^y-, ^^^^y ^^^ Baptized for the Kemif*
I fton of Sins ^ Ads 2, 38. and fine e Baptifm is \
I called the wajhing of Regeneration^ Tit. 3. f.
I therefore the Scripture^ as well as our Churchy
I fuppofes them to be Regenerated \ unlefs the I
j Ordinances and Fromifes of God are oj none \
'' Effe& towards them, '\
A Man may believe the Ordinances and
Promiies of" God to be of very good EfFefl:, '
and yet doubt. Whether all are Regenerated j
j whom the Church Baptizes. Shculd it be ^
\ fuppofed (which yet fome Learned Men even :

• of I

CO

of the Church of of England have denied)
that where-ever Baptifm is in all refpeft^
rightly adminiftred, that there the Holy Spi-
rit does Regenerate ^ yet may it be doubted,
whether her afferting all to be Regenerated
whonn (he Baptizes is true •, becaule it may
be they are not all the proper SubjeQs of
Baptifm. It is not a Matter clear from all
doubt, that Baftards, or the Children of no-
torious Infidels, or of debauched and fcanda-
lous Perfons, are by Baptifm to be received into
the Church ; efpecially if, as it often hap-
pens, the Sureties are of the fame Stamp with
the Parents : Now, if it be doubtful whi^ther
luch Children ought to be received, we can-
not be charged with accounting the Ordinan-
ces and Promifes inefFeftual, becaufe we
queflion, whether fuch have the ordinary be-
nefit of Baptifm : But it is no wonder, that
the Church fhould pronounce all fhe Bapti-
zes Reg;enerated^ he that looks into the other
parts of her Office for Baptifm will fee, that
Iheneed not lay the ftrefs upon Baptifm, the
Infants are fuppofed to be Regenerated be-
fore, unlefs an unregenerate Perfon can lie a
true Believer. I am fenfible of many Diffi-
culties about Baptifm, and therefore would
not be peremptory in my Di^rerminations :
On the cne hand i muft own, that many Ex
preiTions in the Scripture about Baptifm, the
Language of the Ancients, who called it
Regeneration, together with my Charity, in-
cline me to a Latitude in this muter : But
en the other hand, when I confider it is in
the Parent's Right that the Child is Baptized
('as the Promife is to Chriliians and their

See J.

f ?3

Seed, AQs 2. 3p.) and that rliougb Peilons
may, by a vifible Proteflion, have a Right ta
the external Ordinances and Priv Hedges olf
the Church, yet nothing lei's than true Re-
pentance and Faith, will give them a Right
to the fpiricual Benefits of the Covenant in
the fight of God : I fay, when I confider
this, I am at a lofs how to aiTign by the Pro-
mife greater Benefits to the Child, in the
Parents Right, than do belong to the Parent
himfelf •, and methinks Mr. hales Propofal
lis very reafona hie. That particular and pri-
vate Fancies fhould have no place in a publick
Liturgy : It is reafonable a Latitude fliould
be left to Men's Sentiments, and that very
doubtful Matters Ihould not be determined
by it.

But it is the Rubrick (which ought to have

been here confidered) which is more liable

to Objeftion •, " That it is certain by God's

" Word, that Children which are Baptized,

" dying before ihey commit aftual Sin, are

'' undoubtedly faved. If this Indefinite Ex-

ipreflion is not equivalent to an Univerfal one,

ino one can doubt of it ^ but if it be fas it

, Iplainly isj to be underftood of all Children,

^ jit ought firft to be fhewn, that all Children

; (have a Right tD Baptiftn ^ ior otherwife it

may fo happen, that fome Children may be

\ iBaptized that have no Right at all, and

t then it will not be certain^ that they are un-

\.\douhtedly faved. I confcfs this Rubrick, as

,t It flood in the Old Common-Prayer Book,

ij, w«s lefs liable to Exception ^ becaufe itfeem-

^ led only to declare, that this was the utmol]

;f !:he Ciiurch could do for them, and that

there

[ 4 ]

there was no abfolute neceflity of Confirmati-
on, but that they might be faved without it ^
and this the Dlffc;nters acknowledged to be
very true ^ but yet thinking that thene was
no need of any fuch Kubrick, and that as it
was worded it was liable to a bad Conltru-
Qion, they defired it might be left out. And
that the Redder may fee that our Brethren
(who have given us abundance of hard Words
as a pircel of contentious and humourfome
Schifmaticks) did not a£l upon the moff cha-
ritable and healing Principles, I will recite the
Kubrick as it was formerly, and upon com-
paring both together, he will be fatisfied,
that the Alteration that was made was not
calculated for the IcOTening, but the widening
our Differences, vhn being left out which
before made it at all capable of a tolerable
Senfe in the Apprehenfions of the Objeftors.
The Words therefore were formerly ihefc ^
" And that no Man (hall think that any
'' Detriment fhall come to Children by defer-
" ring of their Confirmation^ he fhall know
'- for iruth, that it is certain from God's
" Word, that Children being Baptized, have
*-* all things neceflary to Salvation, and be
*•' undoubtedly faved. By which and feve-
ral the like InOances, it is very plain, the
Defign of fome Men in 1662. was to drive
the Diffenters from the Communion of the
Church of England^ however, they have
been fince wotuUy becalled and abufed for
leaving it.

T/> Obje^Ied^that God-fathers and God-mo-
thers have no Authority to AH or Covenant in
their Names,

Dijjenters

rs ]

Dijfenters do not abfolutely condemn the
UfeofGod-farhers^ there are fonne Gafes,
in which they acknowledge them neceflary,
as if both the Parents are dead, ^c, but the
Objeftion that lyes againft your Pradice, is
your excluding the Parent trom that which
does primarily belong to him, as is plain,
from the Words^of the Convocation •, t '' No tC4n,i9;
" Parent Ihall be urged to be prefent, nor be
" admitted to anfwer as God- father for his
" own Ghild. We are told by our Author,
in the very Page before, Th.it " it is very
" probable the Apoftles made Parents, ^c.
" aipulatetor their Minors when theyBtpti-
" zed them. And is the Church grown wifer
than the Apoftles, that the Parents muft not
now be admitted to ftipulate for their own
Children? Certainly, fince the chief care of
educating Children lyes upon the Parents, it
is very fit they fhould folemnly oblige them-
felves to it. Our Author's Anfwer to the
Ohje£lion is 5

I. That the Sureties are procured, by the
Varents t, and therefore^ fince it is granted
that the Parents may a[lin behalf of the Infant^
the Sureties have all that Authority which the
Farents can give them.

We think that they no't only may, but
ought to aa in the behalf of the Infant ^ and
that therefore it is contrary to all Reafon and
Right, that they fhould be thus excluded :
And what reafon there can be to oblige Per-
fons to aft by a Proxy or Reprefentative,
when they are able and defirous to aft in
their own Perfons, is not eafy to imjgine.

B 2, The

[6]

2. The Church does hereby take great Secu-
rity^ that the Infant jhall he religioujly brought
up^ in as much a^ bejtdes their IBarents^ an
Obligation k laid upon others alfo to take care
of it.

But there is not the leaft hint given by the
Church of any fuch Obligation that lyes up-
on the Parents, but they trainsfer their whole
Duty to others ^ and I hardly believe,
that the Church would take the fame Secu-
rity for her Revenues, that (he does for the
religious Education of her young Members \
I mean, where the principal Debter, and he
from whom moft may in reafon be expeSled,
is left out in the Obligation. There would
be fome colour for this Pradtice, if only
fcandalous Perfons were debarred from per-
forming that Office for their Children, and
were obliged to procure underftanding and
religious God^fathers ^ whereas now there is
none at all, when all Parents are equally ex-
cluded, and no Perfon (according to the Ca-
tC4«. 29. "^^'^''"3 ^'^^ ^^ refufed for a God-father or
' Godmother, that has been once at the Com-
munion of the Church of England ^ and even
this Limitation (however wide the Commu-
nion of the Church is) is far from being
iliiaiy obferved.

If the Far€?2tsfhould dye^ or be negligent^
the Sureties are engaged to admonijh theChild^
and have greater Authority^ and better Ad-
vantages of dci?jg fo than other Ferfons,

And therefore if the Church looks upon
them obliged only in fuch cafes, let the chief
Obligation be laid (where it ought) upon the
Parents.

And

t73

And in this Age, when the Duty of Omft'ian
Reproof hfo generally omitted^ 'twere well if
the De fell zvere this way a little fupplied : Bui
it M hy no means fit that the opportunity there-
of, and the Obligation thereto Jhould be taken
away.

This is anfwered already, let the Parent
enjoy his own Right, and Ice only fit and
competent Perfons be permitted to join with
him, and I conceive this Difpute is at an end*

// /'/ be faid^ that this isfeldom praliiced
(the Truth of which Objeaion is not denied)
/ anfwer that the Goodnefs of a Rule is to be
judged of by the Good that is done, where it is
kept, and not where it is broken-

The Goodnefs of a Rule is to be judged of
not only by the Good that it aims at, but by
its being alfo in ailrefpeas adapted to the ob-
taining or enforcing that Good ,• and upon the
Confiderjtions before alledged, we judge the
defeft in Praftice, to be greatly owine to a
defeftin theRuleitfdt.

And if the Diflenters have nothing to fay,
but that it is negle^ed, they may remove this
Ob jell ion them f elves by returning to the Churchy
andincreofing ihe number of thofe that obferve
it : Thus theyfhall have the benefit of the Or-
der of the Church, and the Church the benefit
oj their Examples,

The benefit of the Church's Order will (I
fuppofe) be no great Tennptanon to any Man,
who confiders he is thereby deprived of the
opportunity of offering his own Child to God.
And if the Difj'enters were fenfible of any Be-
nefit of the Order of the Church, they might
praftice it as they are, whether you will
- B 2 .. Mer

C8]

fufFer them to return or no. As to the Bene-
fit of our Examples, we are willing and defi-
rous you (hould have them in your Church,
if you pleafc: to yield to fuch Conceffions as
you acknowledge you can make, and you
know we can in Confcience comply with :
Though I confels my Averfion to Suretifliip
would prevent my engaging here, if there
were not fpecial reafon for it, and fuch as
would oblige me in cafe of need to be at the
expence and care of the Child's Education.
I am apt to think, that an Obligation hereto
lyes upon the Sureties, from whom alons the
Church does receive any Security. And I
t P^fl' think my Lord of Sari^m fays truly, t '' That
Car.p,i'&6. cc j^Q ^^Q ought to do this Office for another,
" but he that is willing to charge himfelf
'^ with the Education of the Child for whom
" he anfwers : And I fuppofe no doubt will
* Prsteft, be made of this, by thofc -^ who hold, That
Reconciler, the Perfecutions which cut off the Parents,
part^ 2. p. ^^^ f-Q Iq^^ ^^q pQQj, Infants uncapable of
''^* Chriltian Education^ without the help of
Sureties, were one reafon that made God-fa-
thers and God-mothers the more neceffary in
the firft Ages of the Church. And now if
this Doctrine were very generally preiched,
I am apt to think it would foon put an end
to the Praftlce.

As for the Interrogatories put to the Sure-
ties^ and their Anfwers, they are a Jolemn
Declaration of what Eaptifm obliges //i to^ and
that Infants jiand engaged to perform it when
they come to Age : This is the known meaning
of the Com r all ^ and therefore I fee net why
itfJ)ould be f aid to be liable to Mifundcrfiar.d-
ing^ "^ But

[9]

But thefe Interrogatories and Anfwers do
feem very much to countenance the Error op-
pofei in the preceding Chapter. The Que-
Itions are propoundc^d to the Child, tho' he
being uncjpable of UnderOanding md anfwer-
ing them himfelf, does both by his Sureties.
This leems to imply the nectdrty of an aftu-
al ProfefTion of'Fjith, to be made by every
one before heis Biptized -, and if that be once
granted, I do not fee how we can defend
I/ifant-Bapfi/m. But farther, thefe Interro-
gatories and Anfwers are fo liable to Mifun-
derftanding, that it is evident, our Author
himfelf has mifunderRood them. One Que-
ftion which the Minifter asks is this, JVi/t
thou be Baptized in thk faith ? and the An-
fwer is, That is my Defire. This I t;ike to
be no Declaration of wh Jt Baptifm obliges
us to, nor of what the Intant (lands engaged
to perform when he cemes to Age. If the
DijTenters prj£liced any thing like this, it is
ealy to imagine how they would have been
treated for it. I will not deny that Si.AugiiJ}i/2e
and fome others, have fome Exprefiions that
favour the Infants promifing by their Sur-j-
ties : But the vic^uious Baptifm for the Dead
among the Cerinthian Hereticks, is undoubt-
edly the moft ancient Precedent for the vica-
rious Sponfion ; and perhaps to them the rile
of this Pra£fice is owing : But whoever have
been the Abetters of this Practice, it is evi-
dently abl'urd. How can an Infant be fuppo-
fed to believe all the Articles of the Creed >
or to renounce or defire things that he is ca-
pable of having no Notion of ? It is plain,
the Anfwers contain more than a Declaration
B 3 . Pf

L to ]

of what Baptifm obliges us to ^ they contain
a Declaration of the Infants prefent Faith,
and renouncing the Devil, &c, and the Bap»
tizing hinn in that Faith profeft, does import
his Obligation to continue therein. It feems
much more reafdnable to me, to have this
Profeflion made by the Parents in their own
Name, (as it is through them that the Chil-
dren have a Right to the Promife, Affs 2. 3^.)
and to take Security of them, that they will
ufe their utmoft Endeavours to bring up tlie
Infant in tl:ie fame Faith, 6^V. than to require
any Perfons to declare that concerning the
Child, which there is no reafon to believe to
be true, or which if it were true, ihere is no
poflihility of their knowing, or to make them
promife that which it is not in tlieir power to
perform.

• Bui that zvhich k mofi d'lfliked^ k the Sign
of the Q'o/s in Baptifm •, agn'wft which it is
objeUed^ (i.) 'That the Sign of the Crofs h^i
been nctorjoufly abufed by the Fnpijis ^ that
our retaining it makes us Var taken of their
Superjlitions and Idolatry.

But it is not (imply the Abufe that is al-
ledged 5 the Force of this Ohjc£lion appears
much flronger, when the other Confideration
that has been urged- is joined herewith. The
Crofs in Baptifm may (your felves b^^ing
judges) be as wdl omitted •, the Worfhip of
God will not be in the lealt impaired there-
by ; and therefore, fince there is no need of
it, and it is a thing fo liable to abufe, and
has been moft noiorioully abufcd, it ought
now to be laid afide ^ efpecially, fince your
Brethren account it finfuL and rhe retaining

of

[ ir 3

of It only occ3fions Strife and Contenti-
on among Trotcfiants, But let us confider
the Anfwer that is returned to thisObjeflion.

As to the firft Tretence, though I readily
acknowledge^ that the Crofs has been notori-
Dujly abufed by the Papifis^ yet thk does not
prove our retaining of it to be umaivful^ if we
confider thefe Three things : i. That the ufe
of this Sign zvas common in the Primitive times^
and is more ancient than any of thofe Corrup-
tions ^ for which we differ from the Papifis.

It nnay not be amifs, that I fhould here
obferve to the Reader, whence it is that our
Brethren borrow the Weapons wherewith
they endeavour to defend themfelves. In
this Chipter he will meet with the fame Ar-
guments which Suarez t and others ule, toi^-^;;, ,
prove the Holinefs of Crofles and Images, tv-^. Thm. dv.
Antiquity, the Authority of holy Men lhat;'w^54•
have ufed them, the Prefeuce of God that
hath wrought Miracles by them, and the Be-
nedi£lion of the Church. And as to this pre-
tence of Antiquity, I will readily grant feme
ufe of this Sign to be as old as TertulUans
time, (as his Teftimonies prove) but deny
thatthat is a Rule for us-, and it is worth
obferving, that the very firit Author that
mentions the ufe of this Sign, does likewife
mention fuch Superfiition in the ufing it, as
the Church of England doQS not approve of; or
at lejft does not pra£lice -, andjit will be evident
from the following Difcourfe, that there are
fome things that are rejefted by the Church
oi England^ but retained by the Papifis^ that
are full as ancient as the Sign of the Crofs ;
fo that a Learned Dcdor of the Church of
B 4 E^^^' '

L 12 3

England^ has not fcrupled to tax the pretence
of retaining this and other Geremonies, out

+ SeeFrotM^ Reverence to Antiquity, with\ Hypocr'tfy.

Recon.part^wt to proceed to our Author's TeRimonies,

I- h 297' let usconfider what he adds :

* Ds Cor, Tertullijn "^ /peaks of it of of a Vra^ice

Mil. which Tradition had introduced^ Cujiom had
confirmed^ and the Believers Faith had obferV'
ed and maintained.

The Reader muft not conclude from hence,
that TeriuUian is (peaking concerning the ufe
of the Crofs in Baptifm , for in truth, he is
fpeaking concerning the frequent and fuper-
flitious ufe of it, which is ftill retained by
the Fapijis : He is fpeaking of that ufe of ir,
which our Author himfelf makes one diffe-
rence, between the Popifh and the Church's

ji p , - ufe of it : Our ufe ( fays he \) even of this
* . ' ' tranfient Sign^ is nothing like the Fopijh ufe
of it^ jor the Fapifls ufe it on all Occcifions.

This ufing it rlien on all Occafions, is fup-
pofed to be a Corruption^ for which zve differ
from the ?apifis ^ and ycc by this very Terti-
mony that is alledged ic appears, that this
Corruption is as old as the Sign it felf : And
I cannot but wonder, fo much (trefs Ihould
be laid upon thefe Words oflcrtulHan,\M\\QVi
his Authority is and mult be rejefted in fome
other Cufloms, to which thefe Words are as
much applied as to the Crofs ; and to clear
this, I will fee down his Words more largely.
For want therefore of a Scripture Proof of his
Affcrtion, he has recourfc to Cuf.tom and
Tradition, and reckons up fcvtral Praclices,
for which they had no other Rule, *' That
^' \ may begin (fays he) Wv\\ Bap^ifm •, as

Ci3 3

< we are going into the Water, we do pro-
" teft (as wc did alfo afore that in the
•' Church, before the Bifhop) that we re-
'' nounce the Devil, and his Pomp and An-
'• gels : After thit, we tafte a mixture t offia^is^
^' Milk and Honey, and from that tfrne ioi meWs con-
" a Week together we forbear lo go into the cordu,^//^-
" Bath. * The Sacrament of the Eucharift, l^/„]' ^f
'' that was inftituted by our Lord, we receive Socictas.
*' at Mcal-iimes, and at all ocher times, in * Or, The
'' our AfTemblics, befote Day, and only from ^f^^f^"^
'' the Hands oi the Bifliops. We make Ob- 2Jril ^'*'
*' lations for the Dead, and for their 1| Mar- which rvof
" tyrdom on a itated Day yearly. We reckon appointed h
'' it unlawful to Fait, or to Worfliip knt^d-'^''^^'^"!^^
^' ing, on a Lord's day, and all the while f^^^/^^^^^
" between Edjhr and IV hi 1/1^/2 day. We take all, \i. e.
" great care that none of our Wine or Bread thcapoflles
" fhouldfall to the Ground : And upon every 'ngenc^n
" Motion,3t our going our,or coming in,when /^^ Jy^^'J^r
" we put on our Clothes, or our Shoes, or femblies be-
" go into the Bath, when we come to ih^hec/ay^ir
" Light, or to the Table, or to Bed, or ^^^ '"/^' l[^"l^
" down, or whatfoever we do, we fign ^^^[f t^l^ si-
" Foreheads with the Sign of the Crois. If//;op/.
" you feek for a Law ot the Scriptures for || Fro nata*
" thefc and fuch other Inlfitutions, you vvilP'^"^*
'' find none ; Tradition is alledged to have
'•' introduced them, Cuftom to have confirm-
" ed them, and the Faith of Chrillians to
" have oLferved them. Thus far Tertullian,
Now if his Authority is good, why are not
all thofe things praftlced for which he here
vouches } How is it fair to urge his Authori-
ty in one cafe, and reje£l it in fo many others >
Moreover, it appears by Tertullian^ t that f De ^ap-
' ' in ti^mQ,

C 14 ]

in his time they ufed Anointing in Baptifm,
which the Papifts ftill ufe : But the Church
of England therein differs from them, and
from TcrtuUian too : So that for this Cor-
ruption for which we differ from them, the
Papilis have as good and as ancient Autho-.
rity, as the Church of England has for the
Crofs in Baptifm ; nay, I may fay they have
much better : For, i . His Treatife ie Baptifmo
is both more Ancient and more Orthodox,
than that de Corona^ out of which our Au-
thor has taken his Citation, The firft was
v/ritten before, and the latter after TertuUian
was gone over to the Herefy of Montanus^
which I fhall hive occafion to mention again
prefer] rly. 2. TertuUian\ Words make no-
thing to our Author's purpofe ^ for as the
Reader may eafily fee, TcrtuUian fays not a
Word of the Crofs in Baptifm, but fpeaks
cnly of the vulgar ufe of it, which the Church
of England has now r^-jefted : And indeed,
if the Pra Slice of the Church in Tertullians
rime were to be judged of by this Paffige
(which our Author is pleafed to think for
his purpofe) one would conclude, that the
Crols (however common the ufe of it was)
ivas not as yet brought into Religious Wor-
(hip, or tacked to any of God's Ordinances ;
For had the Crofs been thus ufed at that time,
he would without doubt have given us fome
hint of it ^ had it been ufed in Baptifm, he
would have mentioned it towards the begin-
ning cf what I have ^^t down from him ;
among the other uninflitured Cufloms ufed
in Baptifm, or elfe among thofe many Inftan-
CSS that he gives us in the latter end of the

C 15]

ufe of it, he would have put down this alfo.
For my own part, I cannot find any thing in
Tcrtullian fuflicient to perfuade me, that it
was thus ufed in his time. There is no men-
tion made of it in that Treatife that he'wrore
concerning Baptifm, where he particularly
defcribes the Ceremonies ufed by them in the
adminiftrating it. Nor has our Author help-
ed me to fo much as one Paflage of this Na-
ture out of his Writings. 1 know there is
one Pafiage that is often cited (which is the
only one that can be with any colour alledg-
ed) and that I think is eafily anlwered, by
comparing it with TertuUiari*s other Wri-
tings, viz, thofe de Baptifmo^ ^ de Corona.
I conclude therefore, that the manner in
which this Sign is uled by the Church of Eng-
land^ does not as yet appear more ancient,
nor indeed fo ancient as fome of thofe Cor-
ruptions for which we differ from the Pa-
pilis.

Which Words (of Tertullian) together with
his frequent and familiar mention ofit^ make
it very improbable^ that he received it from the
Montanilfs.

But how do THESE WORDS make it
improbable > juft in the fame manner as this
Treatife of our Author's about the Crofs,
makes it improbable that he received it from
the Church of England, Our Frotejiant
Writers have, I think, agreed, that Tertul-
lian was a Montaniji when he wrote this
Treatiie de Corona, and the fame is granted
by t Du Pin^ a judicious and candid Papift ^ f KouvelU
fo that thefe Words fignify no more to prove Bibliothec.
that he had it not from the Montanifis. than P^^^ ^-P^i-

they 9'' 92^

[ I6 ]

they do to prove that they ufed it in Baptifm*

Well, hut theje Words^ together with his fre-
quent and familiar mention ofit^ will inakeit
very improbable : But where is his frequent
and familiar mention of it to be found > In
his Orthodox Treatifes written before he turn-
ed Montaniji ? 1 confefs that would be very
much to the purpofe : But I do not find that
he does in any of thofe Treatifes clearly men-
tion this Cuftom : Nor has our Author help-
ed me to any Inltances of that Nature j and
till he does, I fhall be ready to conclude,
that becaufe he frequently and familiarly
mentions it after that he turned Montanijt^
and mentions it not at all while he remained
Orthodox, that therefore it is very probable,
that he received it from the Montanifls :
>\nd ir is to me very coniiderable, that in the
Treatife wliich he v^rote concerning Bjpcifm,
before he turned Aio/itaniji, he (hould menti-
on nothing of ir,which he would moft certain-
ly have done, had it then been ufed among
the Orthodo^^in Baptifm. I might add, that
from Tertiillian himfelf, in the very place
which 1 have cited, it feems very probable,
that he is mentioning and endeavouring to re-
commend fome Montanifticdl Cuftoms ^ and
it is not unlikely, that this is one of them,
which he therefore puts laft of all, that fo by
coniidering the relt before they came at this,
ihey might be the better prepared to digelt it ^
and to this purpofe likewife I underftand
him, when a little after he tells us, that
" whatever is agreeable to Reafon becomes a
" Law, let who will (tart it ^ ( i. e. let him
>^ friend or Enemy ^ counted Orthodox or tie-

retical)

C 17 T

retical) and then he adds, " Don't you think
" that any of the Faithful may appoint and
" contrive (any Rite) lo it be wonhy^f
" God, promotes Dircipline,and is profitable
'• for Salvation ^ fince our Lord has faid,
'' Why judge ye not your fdves that which
*' is right > He tells us alfo, *' That we are
*' only to ll-e, whether the Tradition be a^
" greeable to right Reafon, whoever is the
" Author of it ^ q. d. Have no refpcU. of?er-
fons^ reje^ net anything I plead for, becaufe
Montanus Juji injijledon it^ only fee whether
what he^ or any other ¥ erf on fays, be agreea-
ble to Reafon, Which Pailages, I think, make
it probable, that he received this Cuftom
from the Montanilis, Doubtlefs, Tertullian
received feveral other CuRoms, which he
there mentions from the fame Hands.
We meet not with the Trine Immerfion be-
fore this, nor the tafting the Milk and Ho-
x\<,y. Their forbearing the Bath Tertullian
t himfelf mentions, as objefted againft the. ^^ «.
Montanifls by the Ffychici, the Nick name „,7,^ c^^. ,,
he is plejfed to give the Catholicks ^ and in
like manner he fpeaks of their "^ Fafls^ and '*' ibid,
li Apollontr/s (cited by Eufebius\) may be H H'lfl, Ec
credited, Mont an //s was the firft that made^'*- 5-fi8'
Rules for the fixing and ftating Fafts. The
Oblations that he mentions for the Dead have
the fame Date, and are I fuppofe of the fame
Original : Tertullian is their firft Voucher,
who fpeaks of them in a Treatife t which he t ^^ ^(^"^
wrote exprefly agaioft the Catholicks. ^'^' ^^'

Forty Incurs after him (Tertullian) and a-
bout Two hundred after Chrifl, (fc, his Death,
and nor according to the Vulgi^r TEra •, for

Tcrtid-

JertulUan wrote this Treatife de Corona dih^t
t Hm, 2. the Year Two Hundred) Origen t mentions
in Ff, 38. thofe^ who at their Baptifm were Jigned with
this Sign.

But it is not certain, whether this be the
Teftimony of Origen^ or of Ruffinus^ who dy-
ed in the beginning of the Fifth Century. It
is^'cired out of a Trandation of Ruffinus^ and
the Original is loft ; and it is well known,
that Rufflnm took a great liberty in tranfla-
ting Origen^ left out and added what he plea-
fed. Our Author could not be ignorant of
this, for every Body conaplains of it ^ and
ufually in citing any of thofe Tranflations,
give the Reader a Caution. And after all,
it is not faid exprefly, that they were figned
with this Sign in Baptifm, He warns Chri-
()ians, not to give the Devil advantage againlf
them to upbraid them in this manner *, "Be-
" hold this Man was called a Chrifiian, and
*' figned with Chrift's Mark in his Forehead,
" but he had my Laws and my Mark written
*"^ upon his Heart. Behold he that renoun-
" ced me and my Works in Bipcifm, hath
*' again fet himfelf to th^ doing my Works,
" and hath ob^^yed my Laws. I own thefe
Words may he underitood according to our
Author's mind 5 hue it we confider what Ter-
tulUan fays of their life of this Sign, it will
appear, that there is no abfolute neceffity of
underftanding them in this Senfe.

And about One Hundred Tears after ^ St.
* D^i^/V./. Bafil "^ gives this Ufnge the Venerable Title of
an Ecclejiajiical Conftitution^ or fixed Lmv of
the Churchy that had prevailed from the Apo-
files Days, that thojc who believe in the Name

c. 27.

C 19]

of the Lord Jefui Chri[t Jhould be Jigned with
the Sign of the Crofs.

Here I might alledge, that very many Frs^
tejlants have doubted, whether this be a ge-
nuine Piece of St. Bj/ifs. Or fuppofing that
the Treatife it idi be genuine (as [ believe it
is) it is very potFible that fome later Hand
may have corrupted this Chapter, and have
put in that long and tedious Digrefllon, in
which this Citation is contained. I cannot
but take notice, that the Doftrine maintained
in this place feems to be contradi£led by St.
Biiji/^ in another place in that fame Book,
t where he tells his Adverfaries, who alledg- 1 Cap. 7.
ed the Fathers in their own behalf, that they
did it falfely, and adds, " What our Ance-

*• flors faid we fay alfo Although this

*' is not that which fatisfies us, that it is the
" Tradition of our Fathers^ for ihey herein
" followed the mind of the Scriptures. This
I think does not at all agree with the Twenty-
feventh Chapter of that Treatife ^ and 1 am
confident, the Papilis have not in all Anti-
quity aTelHmony for Oral Traditions, which
they value or ufe more than that. I amfure
it looks very like that which Tertui/ian con-
demns in the Hereticks "^ : But let it be ^ ^.^ ^^^^
granted that the Paffage is genuine, I then^^^;^, ^,2^*
anfwer •,

I. That we need not wonder at theTitles and
Encomiums which Sr. Bajil gives this Ufage,
becaufe it was very common for them to talk
of their particular Cuttoms as Apoftolical :
St. /^/-^w's t Advice is very remarkable to ^ ^5.^^^^^^ ^^
this purpofe ; " That Ecclefiaftical Traditi- Lum. '
*' ons, efpecially thofe that are not againft

'' the

C 20 1

'' the Faith, are to be obferved as they were
'' delivered to us by our Anceftors i and that
'' the Cuftom of one Country is not to be fub-
" verted by the contrary Cuftom of another—
" —But lee every Country abound in its
" own Senfe, and reckon the Precepts of
" their Anceftors Apoftolical Laws. And to |
the fame purpofe are many Paflages in St. Au-
t Viic de gudine t.

Baptifmo 2. St. Bafil lived at too great a diftance':.
/ffa-f'"! from the times of the Apoftles, to be able to ^'
lib.A.c'iA^ give us good Information what were Apofto-
/fft. 5.C.25. Ucal Laws or Traditions, about which the
Orthodox in much earlier times could not a-
gree among themfelves, but put thls^fpeci-
ous Name upon their different Sentiments ;
To which purpofe, I will here fet down the
'^ Not in E- Remark of the Learned Bifhop FeU, "^ *' That
pift, cypru " from the Controverfy about the Baptifm
4w,p.2i9.u of Herericks it appears, how eafy it was
*' for any Perfons to make ufe of the pretence
" of Apoftolical Traditions, fince Stephanas
'V and Firmilianus, the Patrons of the two
" oppofite Opinions, did both of them with
" equal AiTurance by claim to it. And the
fame thing is evident, from another Indance
mentioned by Firmilian in that Epiftle upon
which is this Note, and that is, the different
Traditions that were pretended about the time
of keeping Eafter.

3. St. Bajil^ m the fame place, gives this
Venerable Title to the turning to the Eaft
when they pnyM, their Anointing with Oil,
the Trine Immerfion •, and he tell$ us. That
the reafon why thele things wer^^ handed
down to rhem bv unwritten Traditions, was

to

f aO

to maintain the Veneration of them, there
being few that underftood the reafon of
them i as he teUs us particularly, that they^
prayed toward the Ea(t, becaufe of the Situ-
ation of the Garden of £i/^;7 : But (thanks
be to God) we are now generally fatislied
of the Vanity of fuch Pretences, and know
that Ignorance is not the Mother of Devo-
tion, and therefore cannot affent to fuch
Doftrine as this : Nor can any (trefs be laid
lipoh this PafDge, without gratifying our
common Enemy. The Church of England
will as much wound themfelves with it, as
they will us : For St. - Baji/ reckons, that
fuch unwritten Tradition^ do as much con-
cern Religion, arid are of as good Authority
as thofe that are written ^ and therefore,
fince the Church does not praftice all thofe
Apbftolital Laws that St. Ba/ii talks of,
they do cenfure themfelves by alledging his
Authority ^ and let theth confidet, whether
the Papifts do not as well atgue from this
Teftimony againft them for Ghrifm, as
they do againtt us for the Sign of the Crofs.
St. Bail's Words vvill not allow it to be an
indifferent Ceremony (as Dr. Hammond tt ^^^^^
imagined it to be ; ) ahd therefore the^^^'J^J^^'
Church of England muft neceflarily come^ g^^/
under his Cenfure : But though Dr. Ham-
imond feems to fpeak in the Name of the
Church in the place referred to, I hardly
perfuade my felf that he fpeaks her Senfe of
the Matter. It is true, they retained Chrifm
in the firft Edition of the Common^Prayer,
in King Edvoard the Vlth's Days j but they
C foon

[ 12 1

foon. altered it in their fecond Edition before
his Death. I do not fee how the Primitive
ufe of Chrifnr) can be excufed Iron^ being
plainly Sacramental, and therefore unlaw-
ful : And of this Opinion (it I do not great-
ly miftake hinFi) is my Lord ofSarum^whQXQ
f ExpofiL he Difeourfes concerning Confirmation t,
offbe 3^ ^fj^ I fuppofe our Author is of the fame
i^rf.p.271. j^jj^^ alio : For though this is as ancient as
'^Pag.1^2. any of thofe Cuftoms which lie ^ objefts as
ufed by the Primitive Ghriftians, without
^ny Jeafloufy of invading Chrift's Preroga-
tive in infiituting new Sacraments, yet he
ta-kes no notice at all of it, becaufe (as I
imagine) he looked upon it as plainly Sa-
cramental, and too grofs to be vindicated.

4. I may alfo add, That St. Bajii in this
Paffage does not exprefly mention the Sign
of the Crofs in Baptifm, but the common
ufe of it. But,

f. This cannot be an Apoflolical Traditi-
on, becaufe there is not the leaft evidence
of any ufe of this Sign before Tertulliariy
(except perhaps among fome Hereticks I
Ihall have occafion to mention hereafter)
thn is, there is no mention of any fuch Rite
as this in the two firftand mo(i pure Ages
of Ghriftiaftity. The>re is iwthing of this
Nature in Clemens Romani^^ lie r mas ^ Bar-
nabas, Ignatius, or Polycarpus, dec. But it
is molt evident, that there was no fuch Gu-
flom in the Church fome time before Ter-
tuUian^ becaufo ////?/;/ Martyr makes no
mention of it : He feveral limes mentions
Baptifm, but never this Ceremony annexed

to

[23 3

to it. In his fecond Apology to the Empe-
ror, he explains the Cuftoms of the Chrihl-
ans, and towards the latter end fets down a
parricuiar Account of their manner of Bap-
tizing, which for the Reader's Satisfatlion I
willtranfcrihe. " We will now (fays be)p.M.t^gi
'* relate in what manner we dedicate our
" felves to God, being New-made by Chrift,
'^ leaft omitting this, we fhould be thought
" to a£l unfairly in this Narration : Asma-
" ny therefore as are perfuaded, and do be-
" lieve that the things which are taught and
'* faid by us are true, and promife to live
" accordingly, are taught to feek of God,
'' by Faftlng and Prayer, the Forgivenefs of
" their paft 5ins, we alfo Fading and Pray-
" ing with them ^ then they are led to the
" Water, where they are Regenerated, the
" fame way that we our felves were : For
*' they are Walhed in the Name of God the
" Father and Lord of all, and of JefusChrift
" our Saviour, and of the Holy Ghoft. And
then, after a pretty longDigrcffion, he tells
us, how they brought the Baptized Perfon
10 the Brethren, and Pray'd, tffc. And then
defcribes their manner of Celebrating the
Lord-'s 5upper. So that in his time, about
Twenty or Thirty Years before Tertullian^
Baptifra was free fronn this, and from divers
other Ceremonies, which TertuUian men-
tions as joined to it. It is this raoft Pri-
mitive Praftice,. and Native Simplicity of
God's Ordinances, which we plead for.

C 2 Id

C 24 ]

In the next place, St. Cyprian's Authori-
t u. B. ty is produced, and we are told. That t
ed Vhllifc ^/ ^^^ ^^^ fathers, St. Cyprian, v)bo was
li thiiCc- before Sf. Bafil, and very near^ if not con-
remony to temporary with Tertullian himfelf^ not only
Tertulliani jp^a^s very familiarly of the uje of this Sign^
fJSS^thT ^'^^ b^^fome E^pref^ons that would nowfeem
writiDg ofharjh and unwarrantable^ and yet the Autho-
thcfe Pa- rity of thli father hasfaved him from being
pcrs, met queflwned about it.
paffi eT ^h^^^^ ^^ ^^ fuppofed,. that the Ciofs
that^^may was ufed in Baptilm in St. Cyprian'^ time,
feem to his Autlioilty will be no more able to defend

prove that this

it was in

ufc before ^ and therefore, though I do not know that any one has
ever alledgcd them in the behalf of the Crof$, I have yet thought it
might not be amifs to take notice of them to the Reader ; They
arc both in the Afts of Thecla^ publifhcd in the Learned Dr. Grabe%
Sftcileglum Patrum^ Part i. p. 95. Which AOs are more ancient
than TeYtullian^ a$ appears by his citing them, Lib, de Baptifmot cap.
17. Nay, if his Teflimony there may be relied upon, they arc as
old as the time of St. 70/jn. Now in the Gr^i^Text, which Mr.
Grabe has publi/hed, we find, that ThecU is faid in two feveral
places to have eroded her felf, pag, 104. A «/V Hv lon-ov «« i/f^ ttoiuja'

fhivn i»/C»'?ar ^t/'\«v, & p. Ii5. H i^ 3f >t\« y.ttlA3f)gctyiaeifMyn oXo> 1i

4^f^civ%s : But in aDfvvcr to thefe I obferve, that Dr. Grabe him-
felf does not deny, that thefe Afts are interpolated and corrupted,
Seepage 94. Nay he owns, that the Greel^TtTut may be mended
iti fevcral places by the Old Latin Vcrfion, which he has publifhcd,
2>€e pag, 120. Now neither of thefe Pailages arc in this manner
exprcifed in that VtrfiOD. The firft is only thus ; At ilia expanfis
manibtis orabat afcendens faper ligna, A Man with his Hands ftretched
out was with lome of the Ancients the very fliape of a Crofs 5
and therefore, the Corrupter thought without doubt that he did
not alter the Setik^ by fubflituting so EKprcffion which feemcd
to him more pious. I wonder how the fame kind of Expreffion
efcaped his HifldSj when both Greel^ tod I^rw agree, [ee p. iii.
& It 5. As to the Second Paffage j befidcs that the Latin Verfion
has notWDg at aJi of it, the very Phrafe of vM.Us^s'^'ii^^v •>^ov I0
iifjL* dvlnc^ fhews, that the Gorruptioa rouft be long after even
Tertiillian*i time.

this Praftice, than it is that of InfantCom-

munion, in which cafe our Adverfaries take

the Liberty to rejeft it, and fay that he is

not an Author Primitive enough to vouch

for itt. Nor is it fairly faid, that his Au- 1 seeAbr,

ihority has faved him from being queflioned pag. 123.

about his Expreflions, when it is certain,

that the Learned Parker -^j and others that * See parr

have written againfJ the Crofs, do blame '• ^'^^ 77-

him, and feveral other later Fathers, for^®' ^^

what they fay about it ; though it is true, *

TertuUlan being the firft that mentions this

Sign, his Authority has been moft confi-

dered.

He t tells ///, that they arejtgned in the jlj. j.r
forehead with the Crofs^ that are ff^oughtJ^^\^^{'
worthy of the Lord ^ that Baft if m is fanSifi- adv. Del
ed by the Crofs ^ and that it compleats every metr. pag.
Sacrament. lo^deV-

And do thefe Expreflions now only SEEM '"^*^' '^^*
to be harlh and unwarrantable > Our Au-
thor muft never expeft to bring the Diffen-
ters to the fame efteem of St. Cyprian^ Au-
thority, that he has himfelf •, if it will fave
him from being queftioned by him, for fuch
Expreflions as thefe. For my own part, I
(hould not fcruple to condemn any one who
fhould ufe fuch Expreflions, as grofly fuper-
ttitious, and an Encourager of the prefent
Popifh Superftition. It is not by St. Cypri-
an's Authority that I will defend my Faith
or Praftice. I refpeft no Man's Perfon,
when he varies from the Rule I have to go
by. And if thefe are St. Cyprian's Exprefli-
ons, and you do not queltion him about
C 3 them,

C 26 ]

them, Why are you fatisfied that the Saaa-
ment of the Lord's Supper ftiould be incom-
pleatly adminiftred in your Church ? Why
do you not ufe the Sign of the Crofs in that
Sacrament, as it was appointed in the firft
Edition of the Common-Prayer in King Ei-
ward the Vlth's Days ? \{Cyprian\ Autiiori-
ty be fufficicnt with you, you have as much
reafon to blame our firll Reformers, for lea-
ving it out in the Communion-Office, as we
(who reje£l the Authority of all uninfi>ired
Perions in this Matter) think we have for
the leaving it in the Office for Baptiim.
In fhort, Sc. Cyprhin was a brave Min, and
no good Chriltian can read his Works with-
out a high Veneration of his great Holinefs,
Zeal, and moft Chriftian Temper : But
notwithftanding this, he had his blind fide
ss well as other Men ^ and this Weaknefs
is common to him, with fome other very
excellent Perfons in the Primitive Church,
that he had fome fimple Fancies about the
Sign of the Crofs : But that I may do him
Juftice, I am perfuaded his Expreflions are
not fo bad as our Author would reprefent
them. The firft Paffage is indeed in hisTrea-
tife he Unit at e^ laft mentioned in the Mar-
gin i where, fpeaking concerning the Judg-
ment of God upon Uzziah, 2 Cbron. 26, 2p.
he hasthefe Words : '• That the Lord be-
" ing provoked, marked him in that part
" of the Body, in which they are marked
'* that are thought worthy of the Lord (or
" that p'leafe the Lord.) The reafon of this
Expreffion of his need not be takea from the

ufe

[*7 ]

ufe of theCrofs in Baptifin, it rrny as well
from the common ule mentioned by Ter-
tkliian ^ to which purpole is the Note of the
Learned Bifhop upon this plice : Bat to
fiy the truth, the reafon ot this, and fome
other of his Exprefli^ns of the like Njture,
feems plainly to be no other, than that In*
terpretation which he more than once gives
us of Ezek. 9. 3, 4. miking th'i Miik ihaf
God fct upon thofe that he would fpare to
be no other than a Crofs. As to the other
Exprellions. which our Author cites out of
him, I cannot find them, though I have di-
ligently examined the Treatifes referred to
in the Matgin : And I am almoft aflured,
that whoever will fiarch into this matter,
will find that our Author has not here afted
with that Sincerity and Fairnefs that becomes
a good Gafuifl:-, but has cited two genuine
Pieces of St. Cy[)rian in the Margin, when
the PaflPages themlelves are not there, nor
{\ ver-ily believe) in any of his genuine
Works, but are to be met with in thofe
Works that are unjuftly fathered upon him,
in which the Deceit is very evident : For as
yet 1 have not met with any thing in Cy-
fr'ian^ that amounts to a Proof of their ufing
this Ceremony in Baptilm in his time.

The great Antiquity of this Vfage is ma/ii-
feji.

This our Author thinks he has proved ^
but 1 muft confefs, I cannot as yet fee any
caufe to recede from Mr. Dj///^'s Opinion +^ t Oe Cuit,
That the Crofs was never ufed in Baptlfm ^at.Reiig,
in the Three firft Centuries: Nor have l^^^-^^-
C 4 been

C28 -]

been as yet fo happy, as to meet with any
of thofe Luculentiffima Antiquitatis teflimo-
f Bever. nia^ which a very Learned Bifhop t tells us
gi. c^w. do contradia Mr. Daille's Aflertion.
rrtm.^ ^^y-" '^^ K2/^^rx jrequently uje being
fignea in the Forehead for being Baptized : I
Jball not inflance in St. Cyril, St. Ambrofe,
and St. Auftin, who fpr inkle their Writings
with the common mention of this Ceremony^
and often times frame Arguments for a good
Life^ from this very Sign upon their lore-
heads.

There is no need of any Teftimonies of
thefe later Fathers, we grant that it wasufed
in their time. And as for the Arguments
which they framed for a good Life from it,
they are as cogent as fome others of the like
Nature, which we frequently meet with ^
as from the pure white Garments which a
Perfon received at Baptifm, a'r. If they had
had no better Arguments than thefe, they
niuft have done much lefs good than they
did.

Only IJhall add this Remark^ that thejirfi
Chrifiian Emperor, Conftantine the Great,
had his DireQions probably from Heaven it
felf, to make this Sign the Great Banner in
his Wars^ with this Incouragement, that by
this he Jhould Overcome : That this Dream
or Vifion was from Heaven^ and a thing of
great Reality^ is evident from the Succejs of
that Frince's Anny under it.

I am very fenfihle of the Difadvantage
of pleading againft the Reality of that
which fo many Ecclefiaflical Hidorians have

at reft-

C39 3

atteflcd ; and that a Man expofes himfelf
to abundance of Odium, who will venture
to queftion theirAuthority,and to examine a
Matter that has fo much vulgar Prejudice
on its fide : But 1 murt confefs, the Rule of
our Faith being once fixed and confirmed by
Miracles, and the Canon of the Holy Scrip-
tures being once fettled, I have very little
Faith in the Vifions and Mir.icles, which
we meet with afterward, that countenance
Rites and Ceremonies, of which we have
not the leaft Footlteps in the Holy Scrip-
tures themfelves. I will not take upon me,
to condemn every Vifion which we meet
with in ancient Authors ; but yet I make
no doubt, more are pretended than reilly
happened ^ and that which perhaps had
fome Reality in it, was often fo improved
and amplified, that we know not now what
to make of it. It is a very cunning way to
incourage and animate Soldiers, to perfuade
them the Viftory is foretold and promifed
them by God himfelf, and is therefore cer-
tain to them. Such Vifions therefore were
frequently pretended before any gteat A£li-
on, or at lea ft the Hiflorians dootten intro-
duce the Story of any great Viftory with
fome fuch Preface ; T\\\is Confl amine the
Great (if we m^y ht\\t\Q NicephorM Calii-
ftus tj had another Vifion, and looking up to f Uh. 7.
Heaven faw the Stars formed into Letters, f^P- 47*
exprefling thefe Words, Call upon me in the
day of trouble, and I will deliver thee^ and
thoujhalt glorify me. Though it is certain,
that no Vifion was neceflfary to teach Con-
fl ant ine

C 30 3

fiantine this Leffbn, when be might have
learned it from the $oth Ffahn, ver. 15.
And as though the Viiion alledged by our
Author had not been fufficienc for Can fian-
tine, we are told by the lame Hiftorian, that
looking up to Heaven, he faw a Crofs with
this Infcfiption, With this Sign thou (halt
overcome all thine Enemies, So again, we
meet with the appearance of a Crols, to
portend ViQory xoQonHamim^ Junior, over
JSlagnentij^^ mentioned by feveral Ecclefi-
aftical Hiftorians. So Licinim is taught by
an Angel a Form of Prayer, and ispromifed
the Vi8ory if he ufed ic, as it is related by
t D^ Mor- ^ci^antii^ t , though it is certain, Licinius
tib, Perfec, was no Friend in his Heart to the Chrlftian
cap, ^4. Caufe-, but he had not difcovered himlelf
when that Treatife of LaBantir/s was writ-
ten, and therefore his Preterxe of a Vifion
was more eafily credited by LaBantiui, tho'
it loft its Credit after that Licinius had pul-
led off the Mask, and appeared to be an
Enemy ^ and therefore, all the Chriftian
Writers who wrote after that, make no
mention hereof, though no doubt, if he had
continued as firm and hearty in the Chriftian
Caufe z^Confiantine did, this pretended Vi-
fion would have been handed down to us
with as much care, and as many Encomiums
as the other oi Conftantine. There is too
much truth in thofe Words of the Learned
"^.mmtio Sifhop I'cll ^ ; '' That it is not to be deni-
adLea.ad''^ cd, that the Liberty of Counterfeiting,
caic.op.cyp,^' and the Forwardnefs of Believing, were
M' U' <' fo great in the firft Ages of the Church,

*'• that

[ 31 ]

f^ that the Credit of Matters of Faftis much
*^ leCfened thereby ; fo that not only the
" World, but the Church has realbn to com-
" plain of her fabulous times. And I fear,
that there are fo many Prefumptions againlt
this Story, which is related by Eccleiiafti-
cal Hiftorians, as the means o\Conjhi/rtine\
Converhon, that it will be able to yield hut
little xAflifhiice to the Advocates tor the Sign
oftheCrofs ; and that tbe Reader may not
be too fevere in cenfuring my Boldnels, or
think that it is only Partiality ro my own
Opinion that is thereafon why I fiifpeftthis
Story, he may take notice I am not the firft
that liave been fufpicious of ir. Jacobus
Gcthofredus^ t a very Learned Lawyer, and f Vid. m
no wa3'S interefled in any fuch Controverfy '" PhUojf.
as this, has gone before me, and has with a ^''f* '•
great deal of Learning fhewn what credit it
deferves, out of whom I fhiU take leave to
borrow what feems to my purpofe, and (hall
add what I have my felf farther obferved
concerning it.

I. Then (as he obferves) although the
Banner that Conftantine {o fuccefsfuUy ufed
is mentioned, yet never d^o we find the lead:
mention of this appearance of the Crofs in
any of the Heathen Writers : JVay, Gelafius
Cyzicenus is fo honeft in relating this Story,
as to tell us, * that the Heathen did unv* Anxonc.
verfally efteem it a Fable, contrived for then/c. lib. i.
gaining the more Reputation to Chriftia ^^h 4-
nity.

2. The

C 32 ]

2. The chief Foundation of this Story is
a Panegyrick : The other Hirtofians do ge-
nerally cite as their Voucher,£/^y^W/^j's Life
oiGonftantine •, and in Panegyricks it is ufu-
al to annpUfy Matters, and to make the
moft of them ^ and therefore Socrates^ tho*
he follows Eujfebius in this Story, yet fays
f Ub* I. Qf him^ f that in writing the Life of Con-
c'«^ !• flantins^ he was more careful in fetting
down his Praifes, than in giving an exaft
Relation of Matters. The Learned Bifhop
of Sarum makes the fame Remark, who
upon another Occafion is pleafed to ufe thefe
* ^'^f ^'/: Words concerning him •, '^ " I confefs, we

jr 3r^' " 0"g^^ "<^t ^^ ^3k« it ^^"Sly from Eufebius,
" for he is rather a perpetual Encomiaft of
" Conftantiney than his Hiftorian ; And the

fBiblioth. fame Opinion had the Learned Fhotius t of

JtfV. 306 ^^^' ^^^^ i^ "°t ^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^ fufptcious,
gey, ' that we fliould meet with nothing of this
Story in Eufebius's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory ?
Such Stories do eafily fpread themfelves far
and near, efpecially when they are in favour
of that Party that has the Afcendent over its
Rival Such a Story as this, if it had been
true, muft have been univerfally known a-
mong Chriftians, or without doubt muft
have reached as far as C^efarea in Twelve
Years time^ and folong it was between the
pretended time of this Vifion, and the Death
oi Licimus, at which Eu/ebiut ends his Hi-
ftory : And yet it is plain, Eufebius knew
nothing of it when he wrote his Hiftory,
becaufe (though he had occalion enough)
yet he never mentions it therein. And is ic

not

C 331

f not very flrange, this Story fliould be hid
from fo eminent and inquifitive a Perfon as
Etd/ebius ^ and that he fhould be able to
give us no account of it, when he was wri-
ting the Hiftory of the very tinne and Battle
at which this is pretended to have happen-
ed > Is it likely, that not only Con famine^
but his Arnny too which faw this Vifion with
him, (hould induftrioufly conceal it ? Or if
they did nor, that it fhould never come to
Eu/ebius's Ears } This, I confefs, is to me a
Prefumption, that the Story was trumped
up afterwaid : And lam the more confirm-
ed herein, by what we meet with in Eufe-
biuis Hiftory, vis, an Account of Conflan-
tineas Statue, which he erefted at Rome^ af-
ter the Victory he obtained over Maxentius^
which held a Crofs in its Right-hand, and
upon which he tells us, t the Emperor him- f h. e,
felf ordered an Infcription, declaring, That lib. $, c, 9,
by this fahitary Banner (the Crofs) he had
freed their City from the Toke of Tyrannical
Government. Doubtlefs, if he had then
known any thing of this Story, he would
have told us likewife how Conflantine Q^xn^
by this Banner. But I need not infift upon
this, fince Eujebim^ own Account feems to
imply, that he knew nothing at all of this
Matter, till he had the Honour to be him-
felf acquainted with the Emperor"^, ^^r^^m^^
that if the Reader will bear with a Conje- ,.^"^j,,2S,
dure, I will offer one which, I think, is not *
void of all Probability. There were, at the
time when this Vifion is pretended to have
happened, no lels than Four who fhared the

Empire,

[34l

Empire, or who (if you wilt) were (Com-
petitors for the whole of it. The Chriftians
were.no defpicable Party at this time, but
were very numerous through the whole Enn-
pire, as we may fee by a Letter of Maxi-
t Euf. H, minus + rheir Enemy, aiid Conftantine's Ri-
fi. ibid. val, afld by the Indulgence which both he
and Lkinius were forced to grant the Chri-
jiians for their own Security. A'Ow na-
tiiing was ev«T like to be fo advantagious
for the ferting Conjiantine above the reft of
his Rivals, as his eng3ging in his Interelt
fo (Irong and numerous a Party as the Chri-
liians every where were; who, by reafonof
the defperate Hard (hips they groaned under,
would moit gladly behold an approaching
Deliverance, and with a defperate Courage
contend for it.

A little matter of Policy then would
teach a Man in Conftantine^s Circumftances
(efpecially confidefing his Education, of
which afterward) to ufehis beft Endeavours -
tofecure their moft hearty Affection : And
therefore to fpeak freely, he feems to me to
have chofen the Banner of the Crofs, bc-
caufe he knew from the ordinary Prafticeof'
the Chriftians (who were a'bundantly fuper-
Mtious in this matter) that it would make
him very acceptable to tiiem ; and after-
wards to fet a better Glofs upon his Praftice,
and perhaps out of a Zeal alfo to promote
Chriftianity, he feems to have devifed this
pious Fraud, if it be one. It is certain,thac
fome ot his other Anions will not bear a ftrift
Scrutiny ^ and it is not improbable, that his

Opinion

C35 3

Opinion concerning Baptifm, and his delay-
ing it to the end ot his Life, might occaii-
on his not afting in every thing like a tho-
rough Cafuift, hoping to wafh away all
at laft.

3. There is not a perfeft Harnnony in
the Accounts of all that relate the Story :
Here I might obferve, with reference to the
Motto that Gelafius Cyzkenus fays it wast, 4. ^^ 5.
T¥> HKdL^ upon which Baljorcus notes, that conc, kcl
there is undoubtedly wanting the Particle /i^ i.e. 4,
Of, which he tells us is prefixed by all thofe
that mention the Story : But therein he is
grofly miftaken, tor though Socrates^ Sozo-
men^ Fhilojiorgius^ and fome others have i*t,
yet Eufebius himfelf, the great Patron of
the Story, leaves it out.

Again, Phi/qflorgius "*", and from him I * ^i^* r.
fuppofe t Nicephorus Cal/ijius, fay it was 5fM'
in Latin^ of which I remember not the leaft l^p, 29!^'
hint in any of the reft. Eufebius fays, the
Letters of the Motto were ranked about the
Grofs, to which Fhilojicrgius and Nicepho-
rus add, they were formed of Stars ^ and
the firft fays they ran about the Crofs like a
Rainbow ^ and the Author in Fhotms ^ fays * Biblkth.
the Crofs and Letters were formed by inT^""'^*^^^*
material Light ; whereas Sozomen, who^"*^' '^^^'
makes more than any of the reft of this
Story, tells us, that when he firft faw this
Sign, the Holy Angels ftanding by him faid,
0 Conftantine, in this Overcome,

Again, there is not a perfeQ Agreement
about the time when this happened, f^r/^-
fc/^j places it before his engaging iMaxentius^

and

C36 3 .

and both he and NicepborM make him to

be in a Journey ; But ?hiloflorgiui fays, that

his Viftory over Maxcnttus was the occafiori

of his Converfion, arid that he faw this Vi-

fion about that time ; whereas the Author iri

f Di Mart. Phot i us and Laliantiui t place it after the

ferfec. cap. g^f^ Battle with Maxe/itius, in whith Ma-

^^' xentius got the better.

Again Eufebius fays^ this Crofs was pla-
ced over the Sun, and that he faw it in the
Afternoon, and confequently he muft fee it
where the Sun then was, in the South ot
South Weft, and the later you place the Vi-
fion, the more Wefterly it muft be. With
Eufebius agrees Nicephoru^ as to the time,
and Zonardi makes it in the middle of the
Day. Now what can be more contrary to
this, than that he fhould fee it in the Eaft,
which yet is aflerted by Philoftorgius and
Nicephorus Calltftus,

But the chief Difference that I infift up-
on, is in the Account of the thing it felf :
We have Three Authors that relate this
Story, that lived in Conjiantine'^ time ^ but
they do not any two ot them agree, whe-
ther it were a Dream or a Vifion only, or
both. The Author I mentioned in Fhoiius
lived in this time, and he makes it ro be on-
Ijra Vifion, and with him agree Phi/ojior-
gius^ and Gelafius Cyzic. ha^arrtius^ who
lived at Court, and was Tutor to Conjian- ^
tineas Son, (and fhould therefore, one would/
think, have as perfeft knowledge of the
♦ De Mort. Story as any Man) makes it only a * Dream
perfeccap, (which perhaps may be the bottom of the
^4' Story,

f 37 ]

Story, the Addiuon of the Vifion, and the
other Improvements, being probably made
after he was Dead) whereas Eufebius fays
he had hrlt a Vilion, then a Dream in which
Chritt appeared to him, (hewed him the
Sign, and bad him make another like to it,
i^c, and Sozomen (as I obferved before)
prefixes to Loth thefe another Vifion, with
the Apparition of Angels, faying, 0 Con-
llantine, in this Overcome, And becaufe of
this very material Difference, our Author
ftiles it a Dream or Vifion, becaufe he did
not know which to make of it.

4. It feems to me fome Prefumption a-
gainft the Reality of this Story, that God
does not work Miracles for converting Per-
£ons, but upon very extraordinary Occafi-
ons. My meaning is, that he does not ufe
to work Miracles to convert Perfons, where
the ordinary and common Methods may be
fuppofed fufficienr. The blind furious Zeal
of St. Vaid (who was defigned for eminent
Service) occafioned God to recede from his
"ordinary Methods, and in order to the over-
coming thofe Prejudices which rendred hini
averfe to the ufe of the Ordinary Means, he
calls him by a Voice from Heaven, and fur-
prizes him (not with a Crofs but) with ^
Light above that of the Sun. But I Con.
ceive, Qonflant\ne\ Cafe was very different.
We have no reafon to believe, that he was
poffcffed of any fuch mighty Prejudices a-
gainft Chriftianiiy : Nay, according to £«-
febua's,own Account, he was prejudiced a-
gainft Paganiiin (wh\cjh was to hirii the on-
D ly

[3^3

ly Rival of Chriftianity) and that becaufe
of the Unfuccefsfulnefs of the preceding
Emperors, who had been the moft violent
Zealots for it. Some have aflerted, that
his Mother Helena was a Chriftian long
before •, which if it were certain, would
much (lengthen this Argunnent : But I lay
no Itrefs upon it, becaufe 1 know not of any
good Authority for it, and I think that Eu-
fi^it.Ccnfl.febius is exprefs + againlt it : But however,
lib. 3 C.47- fince his own Father was a very great Fa-
vourer at leaft of the Chriftians, and chofe
them for his Courtiers, it is alnnolt impofft-
ble that Confiantine's Education Ihould not
poiTefs him with a favourable Opinion of
Chriftianity, and render a Miracle needlefs
in order to his Converfion. If we could indeed
believe the Account that is given of Conjian-
tine by the Authors of the Famous Donation,
VIZ. that he had been at firft a Perfecuter
of the Chriftians, this Argument would fall.
But it is certain that Account is falfe. Eu-
^* H. E.lib.febjus "^ allures us, that from his firft being
^.cap. ig. mad^ Emperor, he leftified the fame Affe-.

; Qion to Chrifrijnity, that his Father had
\\De Mori, done, Laffantius \ alfo afTures us, That
/)er/cY. crt/.'iipon his firft being made Emperor, he gave
}^'iieijcc ^'^^^^'Y ^^ ^^^ Chriftians ; to which agrees
," '*' ' the Author in Fhjtius, who tells us, That
Confij/itine was inftruSed by his Father in

the Chriftian Religion.- ^ And that>.

Qonjlantius declared upon his Death-bed,
when his Son \lonjianune was Arrived to fee
him, That Death was more pleafant to him
than Life, fince he fhould leave behind him

fuch

C 59 3

tuch an Emperor (Conftantine) that fliould
wipe the Tears from the Chrlftians Eyes, and
put a ftop to the Perfecutlons of Maxima
nianus.

To this I know it will be obje£led, That
theConverfion of an Emperor to the Ghrilti-
an Faith was a Matter of that Importance
to ft, that it may be juftly reckoned an ex-
traordinary Occafion, and fuch as might
fairly require a Miracle ; and that God.
might fingle out this particular Miracle, for
the more efFe£lual removing of ihofc Preju-
dices that were common in the Minds of
Heathens againft it.

In anfwer to this Objeftion, I do readily
grant, That it was indeed ot great Impor-
tance to Chrirtianity to gain the Throne ;
but I conceive, the Eafe and Tranquility of
Chriflians would be the fame, whether the
Emperor's Converfion were wrought with or
without a Miracle ^ and therefore, fince
the Ordinary Means may be fuppofed fuffi-
cient without a Miracle for his Ccnverfion,
this part of the Objeftion is anfwered alrea-
dy : And therefore, as to the other part of
the Objeftion, that this might be a good
Means to remove the common Prijudice of
the Heathens againlt the Crofs 5 I anfwer,
That if this had been true, it might have
had this Effeft ^ but 1 imagine, it would
almoft neceflarily have had another Effeft,
which I hardly believe the Bleffed God
would by fuch a Miracle have occafioned :
My meaning is, that it would have been a
Confirmation of thofe ungrounded Imagina-
D 2 tions

C 40 3

Xixm that were commoft among Chriftians
(before Conftantine's time) of the great Ver-
rue of the Sign of the Crofs ^ and that it
would have been a Pattern and Rule for the
fetting up material Croffes, and afcribing
Vertue to them •, and indeed that EfFeft, it
is plain, this Stoiy in a great meafure had.
To this 1 may add, that when Miracles
have been wrought, it has been in fuch a
convincing way, that the very Adverfaries
of the Truth have not been able to deny the
Matter of Faft, but have found themfelves
obliged to feek out Other Evafions 5 but he
that will feek for this in this Miracle, will
1 fear be at a lofs ^ for as no Heathen Wri-
ter grants, fo the Heathens (as I obferved
before out of Gelafius Cyziecnus) univerfal-
ly denied the Matter of Faft, which yet
could hardly have been, had it been wrought
{according to the Story) before the whole
Army, in which were doubtlefs abundance
of Heathens, fome of whom (if this were
the Delign) would have been Converted by
it, and have attefted it j and the whole
Credit of the Story would not -have refted
tipon the fingle 'Teftlmony of Confiantlne^
which is not much helped by the Addition
of Artemius^ who is brought in by Simeon
Metaphrajies and Sarius^ as an Eye-witnefs
of this Miracle ♦, though in feveral Ages af-
ter it was wrought, we hear nothing of his
Teftimony.

5-. This common Account of Confianti/ie's
Converfion cannot be true,if he wasa prbfefTed
Chriflian befure the time of this pretended

Vilion }

L 41 J

Vifion i and that he was indeed a Chriflian
before is not only aflerted by Sozomen^ but
fuch a notable Argument is ailedged by hltn
in the proof of it, that I do not fee how it
can be eafily evaded. He tells us moft ex-

ftefly t, that in Yrance^ Britain^ and th$|^j^, |.
arts of the World thereabout, Conjiantine cap. 5.
had embraced the Chriftian Faith before he
had War with JlLixe/ifius, or came to Rome
or ha/y ; and he adds, that the Laws he
made in favour of the Chriflian Religion do
iblly prove ir. Now this utterly overthrows
the Account given by Eyfebius^ thatjuft be-
fore this Vilion, Conftantine was delibera-
ting withhimfelf, What God he fhould ad-
drefs himfelf to, and chufe as the Patron of
his Caufe, and at laft refolving to intreat
the fupreme God, that he would reveal
himfelf to him, and help him : And Sozo-
men himfelf does indeed give us a hint of
this, which certainly does no way agree
with his own Account, that he had embra-
ced the Chriftian Faith long before. Nor
can Sozomen be brought off by alledging
that he tells us ^, that many things concur- » ub, |.
red to make a Convert of Conflantine^ and wp, \*
particularly this Vifion of the Crofs s for iif
Confiantine were not a Convert before this
Vifion, weuld not-^irty Sozomen*^ Affertion D

in the Fifth Chapter^e falfe, but his whole ^/^^^ ^^^<^^
Argument would be impertinent ^Uut

6. There is another Circumflance in

Eufebius, which with me does not add

much Credit to the Story, and that is, that

after (upon his Prayer to the fupr«;m^ God,

D3 ^'^*C^^.

142 ]

Conjiamiae h^ii ohVdinQd this Vifion of the
Banner of the Crbfs with this Motto, J/?
jbps Overcome^ he was in fufpenfe about the
meaning of it, till that at Night Chrift ap-
peared to him in a Dream to difcover it to
him. He that docs but confider, what the
general Praftice of the Chriftians was at this
time, and how common theufe of this Sign
among them was, will (I imagine) conclude
that the firft Vifion, if true, was lufficient-
ly plain, and needed not fuch an Interpre-
ter. The Crofs of Chrifl was reckoned a
Matter of fo much Glory by all Chriftians,
and of fo much Reproach by Jews and Ta-
gans^ that it was next to imponible for a
Man to have heard any thing of Chriftlanity,
and yet to have been ignorant of the manner
of C'hrift's Death ^ and it being the general
Cuftom of Chriftians at that time to fign
themfelves on all Occafions with the Sign
of the Crofs, Conjiantine muft dou briefs
have feen it made a Thoufand times in his
Father's Court ^ and if Sozo77ien'% Account
were true, it is a little Orange that the An-
gel that faid to him, 0 Conftaniine \n thk
Overcome ^ fhould not'fo explain it as to ren-
der all farther Interpretation needlefs. But
|t is farther to beobferved, that the Chrift-
'ians did thenafcribe great Vertue to the fign
of the Crofs, and that they ufed it as a
Fence againft all Dangers, as abundance of
Teftimonies prove, and this likewife Cun-
lUntine could not well be ignorant of. \Ve
muft fuppofe him to have been a Perfon,
who had not the lealt Drachm of humane
^ ' ■ Curio-

L 43 J

Curiofity, never once to have enquired,
when he fa w the Chriltians croflingthem-
feives, what was the meaning of that ufage ^
and upon the leaft Enquiry he would have
been immediately informed either by Hea-
thens or Chriftians- The Heathens had been
indeed fo fcandalized by this their Praftice,
that they thought they worfhipped the
Crofs s whence the Heathen in Minudus
fe/ix tells the ChriRians, t that they vjox-fvridc
(hipped what they deferved, meaning the'^^J^^^^J^^
Crofs. This was occafioned, I fuppofe, p_^^ ,g;
by the ufe they made of the Sign, and the
vertue they afcribed to it •, though the
Chriftians denied, that they worfhipped the
Crofs, as we may fee in the other part of
that Dialogue ^ It feems plain therefore, ^ ^^.^.^^
that Confid/itine might by the firft Vifion ea- „,, ,o//m«>
fily underRand, that he was to ufe fuch a nee opt^-
Sign as tliat was which appeared to him in w«/.^8p»
the Heavens, and that by vertue of it he
was to conquer his Enemies : And therefore
I confefs, the Story feems to me better laid
by the Author in ?hotius, who fuppofes the
Viiion plain enough of it felf, and does not
with Eufebius introduce Chrift afterward
interpreting it to Conftantine in a Dream.

7. Eufebius tells us, that when Conflantinc
law this Vifion, his whole Army faw it with
him ; and yet he tells us, that when he gave
him an account of it, he confirmed it with his
Oath, Perhaps fdme will think, that (ucb
a Confirmation is a full Proof of the truth ot
this Story : But yet,I think,the World is apt to
fufpeaPafons that are over forward m fyyear-
D ij. ^n?i

C443

ing : And it feems to me, that here was
not that fpecial Occafion for his fwearing
in private Gonverfation, vi2. to atteft a
Matter of Fad^, of which according to his
own Account, he had fo many Eye-witnef-
fes. Methinks it would have been much
more to his purpofe to have appealed to the
Teftimony of thole that faw the Vifion with
him. And Eujebius would have given us
better Aiafurance of the Truth of this Story,
if according to his ufual Diligence, he had
finade a farther Enquiry into the Emperor's.
Army, had found out feme cf the Eye-wit-
nefles, and left us upon Record fome of
their Atteflations : But the want of fuchE-
videnceas this, feems ro me to have made
Eujebh^s ]q^\ous> of the Story, and this gave
Occafion to ConfiantiTie 10 give that Confir-
mation. To this purpofe I underfiand Eu-
febius, when he tells us, " that upon the
'' Emperofs Prayer to God, He was pleafed
'' to afford him a moft ftrange and wonder-
" ful Sign, which it would be hard to be-
" lieve, it it had been related by any body
1^' elfe^ but fince the Emperor himfelfrela^
" ted it to me (who now write the Hifto-
" ry) a long time afterward, when he
y vouchfafed me the Honour of his pariicu-
)) iar Acquaintance, and confirmed it with
his Oath i Who will hereafter make any
'. fcrupie of believing this Story ? Upon
the whole, i think w*e have realon to fuf-
pend at leaft our Judgments, fince we have
but one Witnefs, and that in a Matter that
■^ay Teem much to concern his own Reputa-
tion ^

L4J 3

tion ; and fince it is in the Mouth of Two
or Three Witneffes that every Word (hall
be eftablifhed ^ and fince the World is now
convinced, that that one Wirnefs is nor a
Perfon of fo compleat a Charafter as Eu/e-
bius would reprefent hinn to be \ but his
Life and Reign had very great Blemiflies,
upon which I care not to enlarge •, and in-
deed, Chriftianity has been fo much indebt-
ed to him, that it is hut decent to cover and
cxcufe them as much as we can : And if
any thing feems contrary to this in what has
been faid, the Reader muft not lay the
blame upon me, but upon him that by alledg-
ing fuch Proofs, does render it neccflary to
confider the ground of them.

Thus far concerning the Reality of the
Story 'y which, I think, we cannot, with
Eufebius and our Author, argue from the
Succefs oj that Vrince's Army under it \ be-
caufe there is too much reafon to fufpe£l;,
that the Story was moftly contrived after
the Experiment had been made of the fuc-
cefs of this Banner.

But, however, to pleafure our Author,
let us fuppofe this a thing of great Reality \
let us fuppofe that it were liable to no fucii
Objeflions, as have been already ailed ged,
and let us fee what ufe he can make of it :
He thinks then, that this is a good Tefti-
mony of our Lord's Approbation of the Sign
of the Crofs.

We cannot (fays ht) fuppofe^ that our
Blejfed Lord would^ by fo immediate a Reve-
iatfcn^ countenance Juch a Rite ai thfs alrca-

dy

dy ufed in the Churchy if he had rejentei it
before as fufer^'itioifs^ or any way unvoar-
rant able.

Our Author here plainly acquits all the
Chriftians before Confla/7tine\ time of all
Superftition, and vouches every thing in
their ufe of this Sign to be warrantable ^
and yet \ cannot think that a good Prote-
ftanr, or a true Son of the Church can upon
fober Confideration, and confifiently with
his own Principles do fo. I defire the Rea-
der only to look back upon what I have ci-
ted out ofTertullian^ and what our Author
has given us for . Cyprian's^ and then let
him judge. Whether he has prudently paffed
this Judgnnent'upon their Doctrine and Era-
ftice. The Church oi England is againft
frequent Croffing, nor has fhe as yet decla-
red in any of her Articles, ^c, that (he af-
cribes fuch vertue to the Crofs, as to make
it fanii'ify Baptifm^ and cample at every Sa-
crament, which yet our Author affures us,
is aflerted by Cyprian^ and about which he
thinks not fit to queftion him : Nay, he
thinks all thefe Opinions and ExprelTions,
with abundance more, are to bs received by
us as Truths revealed, and miraculoufly
confirmed to us from Heaven ^ though, ne-
vertheleis, when he finds it more to his pur-
pofe in the latter end of the Chapter, he
iHcks not to acknowledge, th-Jt Baptifm is
complear without the Sign of the Crofs.
Our Author in the next Page condemns vifi-
hle Crucifixes : 1 cannot tell whether he
does vifible Crofles a]fo, which are one part

of

t

[47 3

of them. If he does, this Difcourfe of his
makes much againlt himielf -, and dots no-
torioufly countenance them, and the Opini-
on of fome fpecijl Venue which, through
the Divine Blefling, attends the ufe of them;
for, according to our Author, here was an
immediate Revelation and Direftion from
God for the making of them (a/id not the
tranfient Sign of the Crofs in the Air) and
the expefting Help and Aid from God by
them •, and to fpeak freely, I believe, that
no doubt is made by thofe that confider
things impartially (I mean all but the
Church of Rome^ whofe Intereft makes fome
of them endeavour to think otherwife) that
it was at this time that the Praftice of fet-
ting up Material Crofles had its beginning;
that which Conflantine fet up I mentioned
before, and we meet with many more after
this time.

But farther, many that believe this 5to-
ry to be true, have thought the Crofs had
little to do in it any farther, than as the
Greek Letter x^ the firft of Chrift's Name,
was the Figure of a Crofs. Learned Men
have fhewn, that the Form o^Conjiantine'%

Banner was, -p or ;f that is, X and P, the t5'«c?/i4
two firft Letters of the Name xPi2ro2.^f"^J'^";|jf'
This is evident from ancient Coins t, and/i/?.
indeed from the Authors "^ that relate the * £w/. Vit,
5cory : But the 5tory will moft certainly ^on/?- '^^•
belter vouch for vifible material Crofles, ^'^^^^'^J^'
than for the ufe of the Sign of the Crofs in ^^yi. ^^r.
Baptifm c. 44. a7c.

Calt.lib.'j,
T cap.t^. &c.

[48]

1 may add^ that we ought not to be too pe-
tulant againji that^ which the Holy Spirit has
fometimes Jignalized by very renowned Mira-
cles^ as thofe that confult Ecclefiaflical Hi-
fiorians of the be/} Authority cannot but be
convinced

This Remark of our Author's is liable to
the fame Objea:ions with the former. I
need not therefore give a particular Anfwer
to it. The Reader may (if he pleafe) here
apply the Obfervation of the Learned Bl-
(hop Fell, which I cited before, which to
jne is no ftnall Confirmation of the Predi-
£l:ionof the ApoQle, 2 The/, 2. 9. When our
Author is more particular in his Inftances,
I may perhaps be fo in my Anfwer ; but
indeed, he feems not btmfelf heartily to be-
lieve thofe pretended Miracles, though he
would amufe his Reader with them*, this I
guefs from his following Words, vis.

And thofe Conceits of the Fathers concer-
ning this Signy which perhaps may be too
fanciful, do confirm the ancient Reception of
it in the Primitive Church,

By which Words (1 imagine) our Au-
thor would evade the Charge of a very ab-
fard Credulity, which might have been o-
therwife grounded upon his former Words.
It is not in Debate, Whether this 5ign was
in ufe in the time of thofe later Fathers,
who are here defigned 5 we grant it, but
reckon not that Primitive enough to warrant
our Ufe of it.

But

L A9l

But fin ce the A!;ridgcmertt mentions thQ
Miracles of the Crofs, without defcending
to Particulars, I will here take the Liberty
to inftance in one of its miraculous Vertues,
which the Author of the Cafe feems to be-
lieve •, and indeed it is fuch an one as his
many a Frobatum ell in the ancient Writers.
Aad 'tis this t that it is a moft terrible fcourge f Epipb.
to the Devil, and moft efFe£lual to diive ^^^^o-S^.
him away. And a Learned Perfon tells us, ^^^1^1%,^^
" "^That whena Divine Vertue was fancied in uJ.^
" to accompany that Ritual AGion, it w3s con//. c.6,
•' ufcd in Baptilm as a fort of Incantation ^ 9> &^c. s^-
'' for with the ufe of it the Devil was ad- ^Z^'t^[
" jured to go out of the Perfon to be Bap-^r]»fom6.'
" tized ; And Bel!armi/ie has attempted to T^rf, c, lo.
explain this Vertue of it ; |i and one reafon ^f^f^-^'tb, 4.
of its Vertue he makes to be the Apprehen- ^t'eodlrit
fions and Thoughts of the Devil about n^ nnh lib,'^.
and tells us, " That the Devil undoubted- cap. 3. '
^ ly, when he fees the 5ign of the Crofs, ^^^.^ ^^^{•
" remembers that he was conquered by xhQ^^^"^^^^^^'
" Crofs of Chrift -, and rheretore is afraid l gfj^^^^
" of that 5ign of his Caiamiry, and runs Bumct 4
" away jufl as a Dog doss at the fight of a Tyijcowf. p,
** Cudgel. But I confefs, 1 have no Qpi- j^^'^;,^^^ ^^
nion of this firange Vertue of the 5ign oVsacram.
the Crofs, and do believe that the Devil/*i.2.<:.3i
has too much Courage to be fo eafily lea- h ^' ^57-'
red : Nay, 1 think I have reafon to believe,
that the Devil himfelf, upon occafion, does
not fcruple the ofe of this Sign ^ and that
he can do a great deal more mifchief with
this (Sign to them that ufe it, than they can
do to hhn by it. I will give the Reader

here

here fome PalTages to this purpofe, from a
very remarkable Story related by Dr. Bal*
thafar Han^ in a Letter to Sennertus^ who
t Stmirt, has printed it in his Works +. The Story is
.y^i.pr4ff. as fruitful a Soil for Remarks, as that
/'ft- i' p' which we have been told concerning Co/i"
^^^' Jiantine, The Dc£lor relates it from his
own Knowledge and Obfervation, and it is
briefly this ^ That in November^ A, C. 16^^,
an honeft pious Woman (commended by
the DoQor in particular for her ufing the
Sign of the Holy Crofi) was moft dread^
fully Bewitched^ had blue Spots made in
her Flefh, and a multitude of Croffes toge-
ther, with thefe Letters N.B. and was trou-
bled with fad Fits j That afterward fhe

had more Crofies made in her Flefh, and
the Charafters that are ufed by Aftronomers
and Chymifts 5 ——That in January ioWovi-
jng, befides new Crofles, and feveral other
things, there was a Fool very artificially
pittured, with the German Word Narr^
(which fignifies a Fool) written at length.

I don't pretend to much Underftanding
in Hieroglyphicks ^ but I think a Man
without an Oedipus may interpret thefe, and
therefore will leave every one to do it as he
lees caufe. Only to balance Accounts with
our Author^ I will add this Remark, That
if he thinks that God warranted this Sign
for that purpofe to which it was formerly
ufed, to terrify the Devil, lie has here the
Devil's Warrant that he will. not be offend-
ed at it ^ that if of Old this Sign had in-
deed fuch a wonder-working Vertue, and

was

C 51 3

was fo effeftual a Terror to the Devil, it
IS plain that Miracles being long fince cei-
led, this Sign has now loft thjc Vertue, and
the Devil is not in the lealt ofFended at ir.
And that therefore there can no Prejudice or
Detriment accrue to Froteftanis, by wholly
laying afide the ufe ot it.

If it be faid^ tbji the ancient CbriRians
ujedthiiSign, becaufe they /ived among ]qvjs
and Heathens, to tcftify to hotl\ that they
made the Crofs the Badge of their FrofeJJiony
and would not be aJJ)amed of it^ though it was
a Stumbling-block to the one^ and Yoolijh-
nefs to the other ; whereas zjoe have no oc-
cafion for it who univerfally profefs Chnjli-
anity.

Before I confider the Anfwer that is gi-
ven to this Objedion, 1 (hall, with the
good leave of my Reader, a little more par-
ticularly inquire into the Original of this
Sign, and (hall the rather doit in this place,
becaufe our Author feems to take this to be
a true Account of the Rife of it ^ wherein
he follows the Convocation, who tell us,
That " the Honour and Dignity of the
*^ Name of the Crofs, begat a Reverend E-
'^ ftimation, even in the Apolfles time (for
" ought that is known to the contrary) of
'* the Sign of the Crofs, w'hich the Chrifti-
" ans fhortly after ufed in all their Anions,
'* thereby making an outward Shew and
" ProfwiTion, even to the Aftonil'hnnent of
" the Jews, That they were not a(hamed
" to acknowledge him for their Lord and
'* Saviour, who died tor them, upon the

'' Cro(s:

C52]

^' Crols : And this Sign they did hot only
" ufe themfelves with a kind of Glory,
" when they met with any Jexas^ but fign-
" ed therewith, ^c. I will not deny, that
fome of the later Fathers, particularly Sr,
Ajujlm and St. Cyril^ do give us fome fuch
Hints, that herein the Chriftians had a Re-
gard to their Enenfiies, and defigned to te-
Sify to them by this Ulage, their Refpeft
to their Crucified Lord. This Sign might
be fo ufed by them in their time •, but if
they thought that this was the true Ac-
count of its firft Rife, or that it was thus
ufed at firft, with a humble Submiffion I
conceive they were raillaken. I hope I may
now, from what has been already faid, be
allowed to fuppofe, that this 5igncame firft
into ufe about TenuUian's tinie 5 and fince
It is from him that we have the firft Ac-
count of it, we may certainly form a better
Conjefture concerning the true occafion of
it from what he fiys of it, than from what
is faid by thofe who lived a confiderable
time after him. Now it is moft evident,
that in Tertulliarfs time this Sign was not
ufed upon this pretended reafon, but hi-
caufe of the Vertue which they fancied to
attend it : For by what I have already cited
out of TertulUcin it appears, that they ufed
to crofs themfelves, when it could fignify
nothing at all to Jews or Heathens. If
they did it only upon the account of fuch,
to what purpofe was it for them to crofs
themlclve? when they put on their Shoes or
Clothes, when they went out or came in,

wbem

r S3 3 I

when they went to Table or to Bed > Wc
muft fuppofe the Ghriitians to have been
much more familiar with Jews and Hea-
thens than is commonly imagined, if ihey
were prefent with them on all thefe Occa-
fions. Briefly, their crofling themfelves in
Private, appears at leaft as old as their
crofling themfelves in Publick ,• and fince
in Private it could not be upon any fuch
realon, I conclude that this Account of its
Original is not probable ; Nay, I am per-
fuaded, that whofoever will impartially
read the Fifth Chapter of Tertullian'% fe-
cond Book to his Wife t will be convin- 1 -^^ ^//«
ced, that in his time they were not fo open^**^' ®*
in their ufe of this ^ign, and were fo far
from defigning by it to bear their Teftimo-
ny either to Jews or Heathens^ that they
did it clandertinely when they were pre-
fent, endeavouring to conceal from them
what they did, being unwilling to caft
fuch a Pearl as this before 5wine, leaft
they fhould trample it under their Feet,
and turn again and rend them, as Tertul-
lian there applies that Text to this pur-
pofe. If therefore they by this defigned to
bear their Teftimony to Jews and Heathens^
it could not be at its firft Rife ^ but fome
time after, when the Jews and Heathens
had obferved and taken notice of them, and
indeed confidering how frequently they
ufed this Sign^ it could not be long before
they would be difcovered, whatever care
they ufed to hide it ; and perhaps, when
their EneiTiies began to reproach them for
E this,

C 54l

this, they might then ufe it with a kind of

^^TIm% more jealous of this Account
of -the Original of this Sign, becaufe it
feems to me injurious to the Primitive
Chriftians, of whofe mild and peaceable
Behaviour we have good AlTurance : It
carries in it a bafe Refleaion upon them,
as Perfons of a moft litigious Temper and
uncivil Deportment ; tor if upon all thole
Occafions wherein they ufed to crofs thenri-
felves, they did it in Oppofition to thole
that were not of their mind, and that with-
out any Provocation from them, they mult
have been Perfons of fuch a Charaaer, and
have had but little regard to thofe excel-
+ ,CoMo.lent Rules of the Apoftle, t to give no
32. Offence, either to ^ew or Gefitile ; to Joi-

"'''■ '*• low Peace with all Men ; and if tt be po/Jt-
j^lm ,». ble, as much as in m lieth^xo i''Vf pe^cea-
X blywhh all Men. I cannot but think, that
a much more probable Account may be
siven of the way by which this 5ign was
introduced -, and I wonder it has not been
alledged, fince it ieems very obvious to any
Man, that confiders the ftrain ot the anci-
ent Writers. . . ^ r / r ci
The DoQiine of the Crofs (or of Sal-
vation thiough Chrift crucified) was to the
Jeics a Stumbling-block, and to the Greekj
Fooiiflinefs : It was a great Prejudice in
the Minds of both, which hmdred their
embracing of Chriftianity, and with which
as the mod material Objeaion they endea-
voured to cramp the Chriftians. This ren-

[S5]

dred it abfolutely necefiary, that the Chri-
flians fhould be efpecially careful to defend
ihemfelves in this Point ^ and accordingly,
all thofe that write in defence of Chriltia-
nity, take pjrticular notice of this Objefli-
on, and endeavour to remove the Ofience
which both Jems and Heathens took at the
Crofs. It cannot be denied, that this occa-
fioned them to be guilty of great Extrava-
gance, while, according to the Genius of
thole times, they fet themfelves to look out
for abundance of Refembhnces and Types
of the Cfofs. Their earnetl defire of difco-
vering a Crofs in every thing, made every
thing they looked upon appear to them in
the fhapeof a Crofs; jult as painted Glaf-
fes, or the Humours of the Eyes difcolou-
red by a Diftemper, will make every thing
feen through them appear of the fame co-
lour with themfelves. Thus Juflin Mar*
tyr t anfwers the Jew who made this Ob- f dm/. f.
jeSion, by alledging Prefigurations of the M, 93.
Crofs, and makes Mofcs^^ praying With his
Hands lifted up to be typical of the Grofs^
becaufe Ghrift's Hands (as he thought)
were ftretched out juft in the fame manner
upon the Crofs ^ and in this Fancy (one of
the bed) Biirnabas ^ went before him,, and * £;(/?• c,
he is followed by Tertullian J] , Cyprian t , ,|^*^^ «. ^
and fevera I others. Again, Juftin makes l/^^j.^'/j'J"
the Horn of an Unicorn, or Rhinoeeros^ to adv. Marc,
be a Sign of the Crofs 5 and to this pur- ^^^-3 • ^-18.
pofehe Icrews the Words oi Mofes., where t'^'^y*^*"
the Horns of Unicorns are, mentioned, Deut- ^^'^^
33. 17. Tertullian, and feveral others, '
E 2 give

C56]
give the Tame Interpretation, and it is
great odds, when the Word Horn comes
in their way, that they bring in the Cornua
Crttcis.
t Apal 2. To make fure work of all, Juftin t tells
us. That no Bufinefs in the World is done,
but you may obfcrve this Figure •, as in
Sailing, Plowing, Digging, &c. That it
is the Figure of a Crofs that puts a difFe-
rence between a Man and a Beaft, becaufe
a Man's Body is itrait, and he can flretch
out his Hands ^ and this Figure he obferves
in a Man's Face, being made by his Nole
and his Forehead : But the plea fanteft Fan-
cy is that of Barnabas^ or whoever elfe was
the Author of that ancient Epiftle ; i. We
read that Abraham Armed all the Men in
his Houfe, that the Number of them was
318. Now who would imagine, that in
this there fhould be any Myftical Significa-
tion of the Crofs > And yet, as awkard
as this appears, that Author could eafily
Ihape it into a Crofs ^ For, according to
him, thofe two Greek Letters, I. H. the
two firft of the Name inm, are fignified by
the 18. becaufe /» do in Greek ftand for
juft that Number ^ and then by the 300. is
meant the Greek Letter r, which ftands
for 3®o. and is it felf the Figure of a Crofs :
So that 318, the Number of Abraham's
Servants, was a clear Prophefy, that Jefus
fhould be Crucified. Herein Barnabas is
followed by feveral others, particularly by
'* Sirom. Clemens Alexand, ^ who a little after ap-
Ay* x^j/' Pl^^s ^^^ 3^^ Cubits of the Ark to the fame

purpofe.

^/. ^56,

C57 3
purpofe. What pity was it, that Abraham
zndAlofes did not underftand Greek^ that
they might have been enlightened in thefc
Myfteries > Thefe pretty Fancies .were un-
happily loft to them and all the Jews^ be-
caufe in their Language they will not bear
at all. Twere endlefs to reckon up the
ridiculous Whims they had about this Mat-
ter. Now, thele idle Notions and fimple
Mifapplications of Scripture made way for
the like Praftices. This Notion, for In-
ftance, that under the Old Teftamenc al-
moft all things did prefigure the Crofs, and
that nothing could be done, neither Sailing,
Plowing, Digging, f!fc, without the Sign
of the Crofs, occafioned fome to entertain
an Opinion of fome extraordinary Vertue
in the Sign it felf, and made them think it
might be of lingular Service to Chriftians
themfelves to make ufe of the Sign. Thefe
Pretences might have deceived Sound and
Orthodox Chrirtians, as we fee they did af-
terward ; but it is probable, that the Here-
ticks did firfl: improve them to this purpofe ^
for the firft that we find does exprefly af-
cribe Vertue to the Crofs is Valentim^^'who
in hisMedly of Chriftian and Pagan Theo-
logy, makes HORUS a Confirmer and
Preferver of his Thirty JEones^ and to this
Horus he gave divers Names, according to
its different Vertues ; as it did eftablilh and
confirm, he call'd it the Crofs t ; but as f iren, lib.
it did divide and diftinguifh, he called it i- (■ i- 9^.
Horui : Upon which,place in Dr. Grabe's l''J;^f%
Notes upon lren<zifSy there is this pertinent ^^p/,^„; //^

E 3 Citation iMr.-ii.

Citation out of the iKKoya)^ at the end of

Clem. Alex, '' That the Crofs is the Sign of

"^ that Horr/s that is in the (Valentinian)

" Vleroma ^ for it feparates between the

" Faithful and the Unfaithful, as Uorm

" does between the World and the Pleronna.

By this it feems very probable, that they

ufed to diftinguifh thofe of their own Seft

by the Sign of the Grofs. Tis certain, the

Carpocratian Hereticks had at this time

^iren, ^i^. feme fuch Cuftom, + who ufed to matk

I. cap, 24. ji^gjj Difciples, burning them in the hinder

yimc/. ^"'. P^rt of the Ear. Now Carpocrates, the

F.iif. 804! Ringleader of this Se£l, was born at Ale-

Epiph.HdT, xandria, and it is not unlikely, that Valen-

27. § 5- tinus (who is thought by Epiphamm to

have been an Egyptian, and bred at Ale-

xandria) might borrow fomewhat of this

Ufage from his Country-man, and from

^IJ"^^'^- rfe the Pagans^ ^ who ufed fuch Marks of Di-

ghtbc^io ^^"^^^" ^P°" various Accounts. Tis cer-

DempfierT tain, he borrowed moft of his Divinity from

mtJn Roj. the latter ^ and if it may be fuppofed, that

anuq>M9. he thus took up this Ufage, I think then

the Teflimony I alledged will prove, that

the particular Mark that he chofe was no

other than the Crofs, which very well a-

grees with the Qualities which he afcribes

to it. From Valentine I fuppofe Monta-

nu^ had it, and from him TertiiUian ; and

Tertullian\ Authority went a great way

with Sr. Cyprian^ and others, toward the

bringing in the ufe of it into the African

Churches-, and this was the more eafily

done, becaufc this fuperftitious Praftice of

the

t$9 3

the Hereticks earned in it a plaufible pre-
tence of a wonderful Refpeft to our Savi-
our's Paflion, and therein the founder Chri-
ftians were very unwilling to be out-done
by Hereticks, and therefore in a fort of E-
mulationfoon embraced it ; and becaufe of
its great Vertue, they at length added it to
Baptifm, to render it the more efficacious ^
nay, as our Author tells us, they reckoned
every Sacrament incompleat without it.
This Opinion feems mort probable to me,
however, I fhall not he fond of it when a
better Conje£lure is ofiered. I fhall here
add what may confirm this, that Mr. Daille
t thinks, the reafon why they firft added f De cult.
Ceremonies to Baptifm, was that they Lat.Reiii.
might remove the OflEence which the Hea "*^ -J^-
thens took, at the Simplicity and Plainnefs
of the Ordinance •, to which we may add
(if what I have offered be allowed) that
perhaps they perceived the Ceremonies ufed
by the Hereticks ferved for that purpofe,
and gained them Profelytes. And that it
may not be thought incredible, that the
Catholicks who fo much abhorred the He-
reticks, fhould yet efpoufe this Rite of
which they had been the firft Authors and
Inventers, we may obferve that they moft
certainly did fo in other Inftances. Not to
mention Images of a much later Date ^ ^^^^ ^^
which were firft ufed by the Carpocratian ^ ^^pra,
Hereticks ^ nor the Ceremony of ExfufHati- ij inn. lib.
on, which feems to have had fome kind of '* '^.JJJ
beginning among a Sea of the ria/^;///;//^;/^!!. ^ p^^.C
There is one that I fhall take notice of, that j„ rtmil.
E 4 is ^ 3^6.

I 60-}

is exceeding plain, and that is the Anoint-
ing in Baptifm : This has undoubtedly the
fame Original I have afligned to the Crofs.
Irerider/s^ defcribing the Baptifm of the Mar-
^lih I. c. cofian Hereticks, has thefe Words, t *' After
18. § 2. « that they anoint the hallowed Perfon
" with the Juice of Balm, (Opohalfamo^ the
*' great Ingredient of our modern Chrifm :)
" This Ointment they fay is an Emblem of
*' the fweet Odour that is over the Uni-
'^ verfe. Some of them fay, it is needlefs
*• to bring the Perfon to the Water, but
^' mixing Water and Oil together, and pro-
'' nouncing certain Words, they pour it
" upon the Head of the Perfon to be thus
*' Hallowed (or initiated) and this they
" will have to be Redemption. Epiphani-
♦ Hay, 34. ^ ^ has copied this out of Iren^zm \ and
quA eft: Fetavius^ the Popifli Advocate, in his Notes
Mamf, p. upon the place, tells us, that this thofe Apes
^^^' did according to the Cuftom of the Catho-
lick Church, which they herein retained ;
and with him Dr. Hammond in this Point
t De Conf, agrces t i and Yeuardentius (a Perfon of the
i'6'%1* fame Kidney with Fetavius) takes abun-
dance of pains upon the place, to prove
that this was a Rite in ufe among the Ca-
tholicks, and produces many Teflimonies,
but not one that is both genuine and perti-
nent before Tertullian^ who is the firR that
mentions both this and the Sign of the
Crofs 5 and as he certainly received the one,
fo it is highly probable he did the other
from the Hereticks alfo. This would be
the more probable, if what fome have af-

ferted

C6i 1

ferted were true (which I confefs I don't
my felf believe) that theChrifm and Crofs
were joined together, and that they were
always Anointed in the Form and Figure of
a Grofs. But to return from this Digrefli-
on, let us confider how our Author anlwers
the Obje8:ion he has (tarred.

I anjvcer^ (fays he) i. That the.Ohjcnion
fuppofes the Sign to be Lawful y and that it
may be ufed upon weighty Reafons^ and Jure-
ly then the command of Authority will jufiify
the praUice of it,

I anfwer. That our Author k greatly mi-
ftaken •, this Obje£lion only relates to the
Crofs in Converlation, and not at all as it
was ufed as a part of Worfhip ^ and there-
fore, though it were granted, that the firft
ufe of it were lawful, no Argument could
he drawn from thence, to prove it lawful
in the fecond fenfe, any more than it can be
proved that Chrifm is lawful in Baptifm,
becaufe a Man may Anoint himfelt upon
other Occafions : And therefore, all that
fhould be inferred from this, is only the
Lawfulnefs of that ufe of the Sign which
this ObjeSion refers to. But farther, this
is only an Argument (ad hominem) from
your own Principles, and fuch kind of Ar-
guments are never fuppofed to contain any
abfolute Conceflions from thofe Perlbns that
make ufe of them. We would in Charity
put the beft Conttruftion we can upon the
Pra&ices of the Primitive Chriftians, and
where we cannot vindicate them, we would
yet make what allowance we can to any

Circum-

I 62-]

Cacumflances that tnay ItfTen their Guilt :
And therefore we iay, if you alledge the
true leafon of their ufing this Sign, their
Cafe v^fill admit of fuch an Apology as
your own will not. But we deny at the
fame time, the Lawfulnefs of ufing this
Sign even in that manner they did ^ and
our Judgment farther is, That Chrifl: has
left no uninfpired Perfons wliatever Power
to ordain and impofe any fuch Ceremony
as this in his Church, and fo we cannot fee
what command of Authority will juftify
the Praftice-of it. We cannot think that
Ghtift has left it in the Power of the Civil
MagiRrate to devife new Terms of Com-
munion, or to clog his Worfhip with new
Rites and Ceremonies ; and at prefent we
cannot fee, that there is a Command of any
fuch Aythority, which can be urged as obli-
ging thofe Minifters v^ho have not taken
the Oath of Canonical Obedience, to ufe
the Sign of the Crofs, but they are left to
their Liberiy, and may omit it without the
breach of any humane Law : Nor can we
think any Ecclefiaftical Authority fufficient
t stililngf. for this purpofe. Our Senfe of this Mitter
Pref.to hk jg f^ f^Hy expreiTed bv a Learned Prelate t,
JnnKum. ^^^^ j (h^n content my 'felf with his Words.
'' He that came to take away the infuppor-
^^ table Yoke of Jewlfli Ceremonies, cer-
*' tainly did never intend to gall the Necks
*' of his Difciples with another inftead of
" it : And ir would be ft range the Church
'^ fhould require more than Chrift himfelf
" did, and make other Conditions of her

Comma-

[<5n

*' Communion than our Saviour did of Di(-
'* ciplefhip. What poflible Reafon can be
^ afligned or given, why fuch things fliould
^ not be fufficient for Communion with a
' Church, which are fufficient for Kternal
' Salvation > And certainly, thofe things
' are. fufficient for that, which are laid
' down as the neceflary Duties of Chrifiia-
' nity by our Lord and Saviour in his Word.
' What Ground can there be, why Chrifti-
' ans fhould not ftand upon the fame terms
' now, which they did in the time of Ghrift
' and his Apoftles ? Was not Religion
' fufficiently guarded and fenced in then >
^"Was there ever more true or cordial Re-
' verence in the Worfhip of God > What
' Charter hath Ghrift given the Church to
' bind Men up to more than Himfelf hath
' done > Or to exclude thofe from herSo-
^ cicty, who may be admitted into Hea-
' ven ? Will Chrift ever thank Men at the
' Great Day, for keeping fuch out ofCom-
' munion with his Church, whom he
' will vouchfafe not only Crowns of Glory
' to, but it may be AureoU too, if there
' be any fuch things there > The Grand
' Commiffion the Apoftles were fent out
' with, was only to teach what Chrijl'had
' commanded them. Not the leaft Intima-
' tion of any Power given them, toimpofe
' or require any thing beyond what him-
felf had fpoken to them, or they were di-
refted to by the immediate Guidance of
the Spirit of God-

^ I

[ 64 ]

I will add for the fakeof ourAuthor,that
' there may be many things which a Perfon
may lawfully do, which yet it may be un-
lawful for Governours toimpofe,and which
we fliould not be any ways obliged to ob-
ferve if they did. For inftance, it is very
lawful for a Clergyman to lead a fingle
Life, but yet certainly, it is very unlawful
to impofe this, and to oblige, every one,
when he takes Orders, in a folemn Vow
not to marry : And in like manner, fhould
it be fuppofed lawful to ufe the Sign
of the Crofs, yet unlefs it can be fhewn
that a Satisfaftion in this matter is fuch a
Qualification of a Minifter as the Church
has Power, according to the mind of Chrift
to require and infift on, I cannot think a
Min is Qi>liged to obferve any Rule made
to enforce it : And if the Authority preten-
ded is that of the Convocation or Church-
Reprefentative, we cannot think our felves
bound in Confcience to obferve their Or-
ders. The Divine Right of our Convocations
is not only generally difclaimed, but is moft
folidly confuted by the excellent and learn-
t RefieSii' ed Bidiop of Sarum t y and their Canons
onson a ^yg j^qj reckoned Valid in Law, according
fuied ^0 ^^^ National Conrtitution. I will con-
Rights of elude this Head with the Obfervation of
an EngUfhthQ above-mentioned Bifliop StillingHeet '^.
convocation, f-f' Without all Controverfy, the main Inlet
Vbtfupra.a Qf 3H ^^^ Diftraaions, Confufions, and
" Divifions of the Chrifiian World, hath
*' been by adding other Conditions of
" Ghurch-Gommunion than Chfift hath

'' done.

C^5 3

" done: With whom Mr. CbUlingvoorth +t ^.tilg. ef
does fully agree, whom the Reader may ^''^^* -^"^^
confultifhepleafe. ^'/^'f* ^•

2 . That voe have as juft Reafon to ufe it
as the Vrmit'ive Chr'iftians^ becaufe of the
Blafphemous Contempt that is generally cafl
upon the ichole Scheme of Chriflianity^ par-
ticularly the Merits of our Saviour*s Crojs
and Faffion^ by the Fret ended Wits of our
Age.

If any thing follows from this, it is that
we had need ufe it as frequently and upon
all Occafions as they did, and not that wc
fhould ufe it in Baptifm. It was before
yews and Heathens they ufed to crofs them-
felves, to fhew they were not afhamed of
Chrift'sGrofs ^ and what does that fignify
to our Author's purpofe, who is pleading
for a Ceremony performed in the Church,
where the Pretended Wits of our Age who
contemn the whole Scheme of Chriftianity,
don't ufe to come > And farther, our Au-
thor forgets the Objeftion he is anfwering,
and inftead of talking of the Crofs as a Te-
flimony of our not being afliamed, he talks
of it as a Remedy agalnft Shame, as is plain
from Cyprian's Words next cited by him.

So that St. Cyprian'i" Words are now per-
tinent ^, Arm your Foreheads^ that the Seal * Eplfl.
of God may be kept fafe ^ as if he fhould i $6. ad
have/aid^ Remember the Badge you took ;/p.^'*f^
on you in Baptifm^ and Jo long as you have
that upon your Foreheads^ never be afhamed
or laughed out of Countenance^ as to the Me-
mory of cur Saviour" s Love^ and the Foun-
dation

[65]

dation tfyour Hopes laid in his Death and
Vafton.

I (hould have pafled over this Paflage, it
being of no moment in the Controverfy,
had not our Author fo oddly Paraphrafed
it. St. Cyprian is not in that Epiftle forti-
fying Chriftians againft the Laughter and
Scorn of jF^ct)^ or Heathens^ but he warns
them of, and endeavours to prepare them
for a iiery Trial, and a bloody Perfecution
coming upon them, and excellently com-
mends to them the Advice of the Apoftle,
to take to themfelves the whole Armour of
God (of which, by the way, we find not
that the Crofs is any part •, ) and then adds,
" Accipiamus q!wq\ ad tegumcntum capitis
" galeam falutaretn^ ut muniantur Aures ne
" auiiant eiiSa feralia ^ muniantur Oculi
" ne videant detejianda fimulachra •, 77iuni'
" atur frons ut fignum Dei incolume ferve-
*' tur : That is, Let us take for the De-
" fence of our Head the Helmet of Sal-
^' vation, that our Ears may be fecured
" from hearkening to the terrible Edifts,
** our Eyes from regarding the abominable
" Idols, and our Foreheads that the Sign of
'' God may be kept fafe. Which (if I mi-
ftake not) is as though he had fatd. The
Mark of God and of the Devil are inconfi-
ftent ^ you forfeit the Crofs by Idolatry ;
as you hope therefore for the Salvation to
which you are marked, you muft abftain
from Idolatry, even in fpite of the moft
exquifite Torments.

But

[^7 3

But this Para phrafe of our Author brings
to my mind a Remark of the Learned Mr.
Jojeph Mede ^ who in his excellent Trea-
tife of the Apoftacy of the latter times,
gives us Icveral Inflances of that Apoftacy,
and of the Fultilmcnt of that part of Darn-
ers Prophefy, Chap, xi. 38. which he thus
renders •, Together mth God in his Seat^ he
Jhall VQorflnp JSUhuzzm [Proteftors,] and
having fhewn how exaftly this was tulfil-
led, in the Honour given to Saints and Re-
liques, adds, t " I mi^ht alfo put you m^lriUr^ft-
" mind of the Term lAunimentum^ given '''*' ^* ^^^'
'' to the Crofs of Chrilt, and that fo ufual
" hat in Phrafe of Mun'ire figno cruck^ to
'' fortify (that is, to ftgn) with the Sign of
" the Crofs, And it may feem a little
ftrange, thae our Author fhould fay, * the^Jf^^^-'^Jf*
Grofs U a meer tranfient Sign^ which abides
not fo long as to be capable of becoming an Ob-
jett or Medium ofWorfhip ^ and yet here,
when he defcants upon St. Cyprians Words,
Ihould fuppofe that a Chrittian has it upon
his Forehead a long time afterward,

I grant indeed^ that the ufe of the Crofs -k
an indifferent Ceremony^ and that Baptifm is
as our Church declares^ compleat without it^
but what I contend for is fully proved, viz.
Ihat the Crofs was ufed in the firfl Ages of
Chrifiianity ; fro/n whence it follows^ that
though it is not neceffary^ yet it is warran-
table.

If it is an indifferent Ceremony, it is
highly unreafonable to infift upon it with
fuch Stiffnefs and Rigour as the Church has

done :

C68 3

done : Arid if Baptifni is compleat without
it, I hope the Church will not be angry
with the Diflenters, that they defire no
more than compleat Baptifm. But I can.
not but wonder, that our Author ftiould
think he has fully proved what he contends
for, when there is one part of his Argu-
ment which he has n®t fo much as attemp-
ted to prove. His Argument is plainly this^
Whatever was ufed in the firft Ages of
Chriftianity is warrantable ^ the Crofs was
ufed in the firft Ages of Chriftianity, there-
fore it is warrantable. Both the Premifes
are denied by his Adverfaries, and of the
firft he takes no notice at all, of the latter
he has given us, as I have (hewn, but very
poor Evidence ^ but were that ever fo
hrong, his Conclufion will not hold unlefs
he prove the other Propofition alfo.

Our ufe ofthU Sign U not in theleaft like
the Topifh ufe oj it ^ for (i.) We admit of
no vifihle Crucifixes,

The Force of this Argument I do not
well underftand. It is no Proof, that you
do not ufe one Sign as ihey do, becaufe they
ufe another more than you. I might as
fairly argue the contrary, becaufe you ad-
mit of Vifible material Crofles, which have
more Affinity with this Sign than a Cruci-
fix \ and thefe are too common among you.
And it is to the Immortal Honour of Dr. K.
Qox^ Bifhop of El)\ the Beginner of the
Quarrel at Franckfort^ that he was for in-
troducing the ufe of them, and therefoi'e
confulted Cajfander^ a moderate Fapifi^ con-
cerning

169 3

cerning the particular Form or Shape that
he fhould chufc t. And I fuppofe it will f y'td- Caf-
not be denied, thjt Arch Bifhop Laud, and A"'' ^pfi-
fonne others in his time, were for bringing ^°*
Vifible Crucifixes into ufe ,• and that at a
confiderable charge he repaired fome in his
own Chappel- Windows, which werealmoft
mined. And fuch Vifible Crucifixes arc
fHU admitted, whatever our Author fays to
the contrary. And concerning them, I fhall
tranfcribe from Mr. ?rynne '^, a notable * CdlI^
Remark of Blfhop Mount ague\ who fpeak- ^^^' ^*'
ing of Images, has thefe Words 5 " The ^ ^'
" fetting of them up, fufFering ihem to
** ftand, ufing them for Ornaments, fot
*' helps of Memory, of Affe£lion, of Re-
" memoration, cannot be abftra£ted to my
" Underftanding, from Reverence and Ho-
" nour fimply in due kind. It is farther
very remarkable, that many fine Piftures,
and particularly of Chrift upon the Crofs,
are got into the Bookof Common Prayer ;
and one would think, that one may as well
guefs by the Book of your Devotions, what
yoa admit of, as by any thing. Perhips
fome may think, this is only the Printers
and Bookfellers contrivance, lor their own
Gain, though contrary to the mind of the
Church: But this charitable Interpretation
can hardly be allowed by him^ who confi-
ders how abundaotly Jealous ihe Church is
of the Honout of that Book. She cannot
teafonably he fuppofed to have fo patient-
ly fufFered this, hid [he refented ic as any
ways injurious or diflionourable to the
Book, F A

[ 70 ]

A confiderable Author in the late Dif-
putc chofe therefore to lay this upon the
Papifls, as an Artifice ufed by them lo in-
fnars the common People ^ and that they
might have a Hand in this I will not deny,
but I fear, the fine Cuts that are prefixed to
the Treatiies of fome eminent Church-men
will evidence, that it was not univerfally di-
ftafleful to the Church. Mr. Frynne tells
i)s bovv fond ArchBifhop L^W was of thofe
Popltli Pi£lures ^ and that he ordered the
Bibles which were filled with them, to be
calkd, The Arcb-Bijhop ^/Canterbury'j Bi-
bles. And hnce the Alterations, which
were made after the Reftauration, were ge-
nerally according to the Hearts defire of
thofe of his Kidney, it is not improbable,
that thofe pretty Piftures might have had a
helping-hand from fome of his old Friends,
whole Defign the Reader may eafily ima-

A or have any of our Writers ventured to
-f cbri(}hnj'ay^ zjojtb Mr, Baxter t, That a Crucifix well
VireBory. (f^ji^^if^ /^^ Alind and Imagination of a Be-
./iever.

But I have the Charity to think, that
none of your Writers queltion the Truth of
this ^ for whoever will read the whole Pa-
ragraph will fee, that Mr. Baxter defigns
-in thefe Words no more than this. That a
Believer's Mind ought to be frequently and
much alieOed with Chrift's Death, toge-
ther with all the Circumftancesof it.

And that it is not unlavuful to 7nake an
Imjge {of a Crucifix) to be an Obje[l or

Medium

C 7i 3

Medium of our Cortftderation^ exciting our
Minds to voorfhip God,

This Paffage in Mr. Baxter is about the
diftance of a Page in Folio from the other j
I (ball cite it more at large, that his mean-
ing may be the more obvious : " It is not
" (fays he) unlawful to make an Image
'* (out of the cafes of Accidental Evil be-
'• fore named) to be ObjeUum vel Medium
" excitans ad cultum Dei, an Object or Me-
'* dium of our Confideration, exciting our
" Minds to worfhipGod : As a Death's-
" head, or a Crucifix, or an Hiftorical I-
*' mage of Chrilf, or fome holy Man ^ yea,
" the fight of any of God's Creatures may
" be fo holily ufed, as to flir us up to a
" worfhipping AfFeftion, and fo is Medium

" cultM^ vel efficienter : So that it is

" lawful, by the fight of a Crucifix, to be
" provoked to worftip God ; but it is un-
" lawful to offer him that Worfhip by of-
*' fering it to the Crucifix firft, as the fign,
*' way or means of our fending it to God.
iSy this it appears, without any Comment,
what Mr. Baxter's meaning is •, but as I am
refolved never to defend any Man in what
1 do not believe my felf, 1 do own this
Paffage, however qualified, does (fill very
much offend me. I doubt not to fay, th«t
Mr. B. in this went contrary to the famous
Champions of the Proteftant Caufe, and I
Terily believe to Truth it felf : But then
will Mr. Bennet (for the Cafuift himfelf
does not) affert, that none of their Writers
have faid as much as Mr, Baxter,

F 2 Bifhop

C72]

' Bifhop Mountague was one of Theit
Writers, and he in his Gagge approves of
Images for Three Ufes s *' Injlitutio rudtum^
" commemorat'io hifioria^ ^ e^citatio devs^
" tionis 5 the inftrufting the Ignorant, the
'• remembrance of the Hiftory, and the ex-
" citing Devotion ; And this is full as
much as can be charged upon Mr. Baxter.
He tells us top, " That the PiSlures of
" Chrift, the Bleffed Virgin, and Saints,
" may be made, had in Houfes, fet up in
** Churches, Refpeft and Honour may be
" given unto them, the Proteftants do it,
" and ufe them for helps of Piety, in Re-
*' memoration, and n^ore effeQual Repre^
" fenting of the Prototype. And this (if
\ miQake not greatly) is a eonflderable
flrain higher than Mr. Baxter. I might
likewife cite to this purpofe, his Appeal ^
Origines Ecclejiaftka ^ as alfo, the Altare
Chriftianum of Dr. ?ockliniton^ another
Writer of the Church oi England^ who has
f alTages more ofFenGve than ^ix, Baxter's ;
but he who has a mind to fee more of this
matter, may confult Mr. Prynne^ whence
I took thele. Vide Cant, Doom* p. 203. and
clfe where,
t Cant. Farther, Mr. Pry/tnc + tells us. That
Voom, poi. Arch-Bifhop Laud, in a Speech againft
'^^' Sberjield'm the Star-chamber, defended the
ufe of Images in the Churches s and that
he juftified the piduringofGod the Father
* L'( f "^" ^^^ ^"^^^ ^^^^ Old Man, out of Dan. \x.
AB Laud Dr. T/^^/zw ^ indeed denies, that he juftified
p', f 39. ' the painting God the Father in the (hape of

an

C73 3

an Old Man, and fays, that hacio he was
Milrepr^fented, and thai he only gave the
Reafon which induced fomc Painters to
that Reprefentation. A Man would be
ready to guefs, by the Arch-Bifhop's Vio-
lence and Zeal againft Sherfieid^ and his
procuring a Thouland Pound Fine to be
laid upon him, for only breaking fuch a
Pifture \ that he was no great Enenoy to
the Painters way of Reafoning^ biii
however, the DoSoc acknowledges, that
the Arch-Bifhop(hew*d in that Speech, how
far the ufe of painted Images, in the way
of Ornament and Remembrance^ might be
retained in the Church : And as this feems
to juftify Mr. ?rynne\ Account, fo it is
fufficient to my purpofe 5 the Arch Bifhop
carrying the Matter as far as Mr. Baxier,

I fhailadd, That Mr. Hovker (by whom
you fay in the next Words, is truly ex-
prefled the Senfc of the Church of England)
does make the Sign of the Crofs to be of
the fame ufe, that Mr. B. does a material
Crucifix. I fhall cite fome Pa(fages out of
that place lin Mr, Hooker.

** If Men of fo good Experience {as Se-
" neca^ ^c) and Infight in the Mayms of
" out weak Flefti, have thought thofe fan»
^' cied Remembrances available to awaken
" Shame-facedncls, that fo the boldnefs of
" Sin may be ftayed e're it look abroad,
^ furely the Wifdom of the Church of
" Ghrift, which has to that ufe converted
'' the Ceremony of the Crofs in Baptifm,
" it is no Chriftian Man's part to defpife,
F I r efpe;

[ 74]

" efpecially feeing that by this means where
'* Nature does earneftly innport Aid, Reli-
,*' gion yieldeth her that ready Afliftance,
" than which there can be no help more
" forcible ferving only to relieve Memory,
'^ and to bring to our Cogitation that which
" (hould moft make afhamed of Sin. The
" Mind, while we are in this prefent State,
*' whether it contemplate, meditate, deli-
'* berate, or howfoever exercife it lelf,
" worketh nothing without continual Rq-
" courfe to the Imagination, the only Store-
" houfeof Wit, and peculiar Chair of Me-

" mory.— Shall 1 fay, that the Sign

^' oftheCrofs (as we ufe it) is in fome

t Caroftg'it fQjj ^ means to work our + Prefer vation

:S„1::: from Reproach ? Surely the Mind,

atttr. Tcr- which as yet has not hardned it leli m

tuli. " Sin, is feldom provoked thereto in any

" grofs and grievous manner, but Nature's

*^ fecret Suggeftion objefted againft its Ig-

" nominy as a bar ; which Conceit being

'' entred into that Palace of a Man's Fancy,

" the Gates whereof have imprinted upon

*^' them that holy Sign, whioh bringeth

" forthwith to mind whatfoever Chrift

*' hath wrought or we vow'd againft Sin,

" it cometh hereby to pals, that Chriftian

" Men never want the moft efftctual tho'

" filent Teacher, to avoid whatfoever may

*^ defervedly procure Shame : So that in

^' things we fhould be afhamed of we are

" by the Crofs admonifhed faithfully of

" our Duty at every Moment, when Ad-

"^ monition doth need.- The folemneft

" Vow

C75 1

Vow that we ever made to obey Chriff,
and to fufFer willingly all Reproaches
for his fake, was made in Baptifm •, and
among other Memorials to keep us
mindtul ot that Vow, we cannot think
that the Sign which our New-baptized
Foreheads did there receive, is either un-
fit or unforcible, the Reafons hitherto
alledged being weigh'd with indift'ercnt

Ballance. Seeing theielore, that to

fear Shame which doth worthily follow
Sin, and to bear undeferved Reproach
conlhntly, is the general Duty of M
Men profeflmg Chrirtianity, feeing alio
that our Weaknefs, while we are here
in this prefent World, doth need, to-
wards Spiritual Duties, the help even of
corporal Furtherances, and that by rea-
fon of Natural Intercourfe between the
highelt and loweft Powers of Man's
Mind in all Adions, his Fancy or Imagi-
nation carrying in it that fpecial Note of
Remembrance, than which there is no-
thing more forcible, where either too
weak or too ftrong a Conceit of Infamy
and Dilgrace might do great harm, (tand-
eth always ready to put forth a kind of
neceflary helping Hand ^ we are in that
refpeft to acknowledge the good and pro-
fitable life of this Ceremony, and not
to think it fuperfiuous, that Chrift has
his Mark applied unto that part where
Bafhfulnefs appeareth, in token that they
which are Chriftians fhould be at no
time afhamed of his Ignominy. But to
F 4 " pre-

C 76 3

"' prevent fome Inconveniences which might
" eofue, if the over ordinary ufe thereof
" (as it fareth with fuch Rites when they
*' are too common) fbould caufe it to be
*' of lefs Obfervation or Regard, where it
" moft availeth, we neither omit it in that
" place, nor altogether make it fo Vulgar
" as the Guftom heretofore hath been.

Thus far Mr. hooker^ whqm I have the
rather cited thus at large, that the Reader
may fee what ftrange Weaknefs the De-
fence of this Caufe betrays even a Man of
his Judgment into. Now let us compare
him and Mr. Baxter together. 'Tis evi-
dent, they both fpeakof a Vifible Sign of
Chrifl*s Death, only Mr. £. fpeaks of a
Material, Mr.//, of an Immaterial or Aeri-
al one. They both of them think the Sign
or Image ufeful to excite Memory or Con-
lideration : Mr. if. thinks it ufeful upon
the account of the part to which the Sign
is applied •, and thinks, that becaufe that
holy Sign is imprinted on the Gates of a
Man's Fancy (i. <f. his Forehead) it mult
neceflarily keep out that which is evil, and
may caufe Shame. I will not prelume to
determine from whom Mr. H. borrowed
this Argument, but I know it was made
ufe of by others before him ^ and it is upon
f SummM this very Account that Aquino* t will have
fag, 3. qu. the Chryfm applied to the Forehead, Trop-
7i. Aft, 9. jgp propinquitatefn hiiaginat'ionii. Now a
Man might be ready to think., that fince
fuch Advantage is owing to this print up-
on the Gates of a M^n's Fancy, that the

more

[77 3

more legible and plain it is, the more ufe-
ful it is like to be •, and that therefore ac-
cording to this Notion, they took the wi-
fe(i courfe who made the Print and Cha-
racter indelible, viz, by burning a Crofs
with a Red'hot Iron in the Forehead of the
Children when Baptized ; or if my Devo-
tion would not lead me to this Severity,
yet certainly, if I were of Mr. U's Mind,
I fhould with the Papifts frequently reprint
that Sign upon my Forehead ; and (hould
not only fay with Mr. i^, that a Oucifix
well befitteth the bnnginatienoi^L Believer,
but that a real vilible Crofs well befitteth
the Forehead of a Chriftian % and 1 am
grofly milhken, if that would not much
better anfwer the end Mr. H, propofes.

Methinks, however difagreeable Mr. £'s
Opinion is, it is yet intelligible, that a Man
by feeing a Crucifix may be put in mind of
Chrift aucified, and fo of worfhipping
him. But how Mr. H. Ihould make hiii
Crofe ferve to relieve Memory, is to me as
yet an inexplicable Myftery. It feems
plain to me, that the Memory muft here
relieve it felf ^ and that a Man muft fitft
remember aftually the Crofs, before he
will be thereby put in mind of Chrift cruci-
fied, and what relief then will this give to
the Memory ? Muft it not as much exercife
the Memory of a Chriftian to think of the
Crofs made over his Forehead when an
Infant, as to think of Chrift crucified >
One would think, that Mr. U's way fliould
rather be a Burden than a Relief to the Me-
mory

C78]

tnory of a Chriftian ^ becaufe in this way
there is Ibme what more to be remembred
than was otherwife needful (I am to remem-
ber the Crofs,that fo 1 may remember Chrift
crucified) and becaufe I luppofe a Chriftian
will be of tner in hearing and reading God's
Word, put in mind of Chrift crucified, than
of the Crofs in Baptifm, and therefore will
the eafier remember the former, without any
need of burthening it felf with the Remem-
brance of the latter.

The Crofs might indeed be fa id to relieve
Memory, if it would bring to our Remem-
brance Chrift crucified, though it were not
it lelf firft aiSually to be thought of by us 5
but I confefs, I fear that Man will never
think of Chrift crucified at all, that thinks
not of him till he is brought to his Remem-
brance by the Crofs that was made over
him in Baptifm : But Mr. Its dark Ex-
preflions feem to Ihew, that he was of ano-
ther Mind. He makes the Crofs to be a
faithful and conftant Monitor of our Duty,
a moft effeftual Teacher to avoid Sin, ^c,
and this he argues from the part over which
it is made ^ and one would be ready to
think therefore, it muft be one of rhefe
Three Ways : Either,

I. By vertue of God's Promife and Blef-
fing, as it is in thofe Sacraments which we
ufe ^ which being inUituted by Chrift, are
attended with his Bleiling according to his
own Promife, and fo the eftefl: and advan-
tage of them is prod.uced : But this I pre-
fiime will not be pretended. Or,

2. By

291

[79]

2. By fome fort of Incantation, as the .
Reverend Bifhop of Sarum tells us, it was

ufed in Baptifm t, but this I imagine will ^ ^^^ <^-
berejeaed likevi^ife: And therefore, TJ!'^'^'

3. It muft re in fome Natural way, ac-
cording to the general Courfe and Operati-
on of fecond Ca u fes ; and this Mr. H,
feems moli plainly to intend, that this Sign
being made over a part fo near the Seat of
Fancy, being printed upon the Gates of it
(though only made in the Ai/\ and perhaps
never fee n by i/s in our whole Lives) ftands
there (though a tranfient Sign) like fome
Centinel to keep from entring into that no-i
ble Palace, any thing that may caufe (hame,
and does whenever we need by a phyfical
fort of Power, give us a helping-hand. Ic
is a pity Mr. h. has not (hewn us how all
this is performed by the Crofs : But it is
enough for one Age to (tart this Notion,'
and to leave it to the next to give a full
Account and Explication of it, which to fay
the truth of it, is not to be expefted from a
meer Divine ^ and therefore, I would com-
mend the Confideration of this to fome of
the brave Virtuofo's of our Age, Men nicely
acquainted with the Secrets of Natural Phi-
lofophy, that they would give us a good
Account of this admirable Phenomenon,
which I think cannot be folved, by any
thing that has been hitherto faid in Natu^
ral Philofophy.

And methinks, if Mr. i/'s Opinion bejuft
and true, we mufl acknowledge, that the
Crofs in Baptifm does confer Grace in a

molt

C 80 ]

moft fingular manner ^ and I fear we muft
not only incourage the Popifh PraSlice of
introducing new Sacraments into theChurch,
but their Doftrinc likewife, in making them
confer Grace, ex oper€ operato.

Farther, the Reader may obferve, what
Titles Mr. H. beftows upon the Sign of
the Crofs : He ftiles it Chnll^s Mark ; fo
that it fhould feem, that this is made the
Badge of our Chriftianicy. But till the.
D'ljfenfers fee it proved, that Chrift has
left the Migiftrate or Church Power of de-
viling what (hall be the Mark and Badge
of his Difciples, they will hardly confent
to have this Badge fee upon their Children *,
nor will they elteem it an indifferent thing
what is made Chrift's Muk, fince he his
himlelf already appointed one.

Agiin, he calls it a Ho/y Sigf7, Now I
would fain know, wherein the HolineG of
it does confiit, and who it is thit has fet
this Scamp upon it. We account the Pa-
pifts Superf^itious in afcribing Holinefs to
Reliqaes,Croffes,and other things to which
it does not belong ^ and Mr. 7/, feems lia-
ble to the fame Charge, and that perhaps
with fome Aggravation too. The Papifts,
forinftance,do not elteem this Sign to befo
Holy, hut that anyPerfon upon any occafion
may ufe it ^ hut Mr. H. is againft the K"/^/-
gar ufe of it upon this reafDn, leift the over
ordiniry ufe of it fhould cjufe this Holy,
Sign to be of lefs Regard and Obfitvation ;
and therefore you mult know, thu it is
now referved to the Prieft, as his peculiar

Pro-

C 8i 1

Province, to make a Crofs 5 and if a Man
were to guefs at the reafon of Cuftoms and
Ulages in the Church oiE, by Mr. H. he
would be ready to fufptft, that that is the
reafon why the Crofs is not ufed in private
Baptifm ^ for tho' he is not for making this
holy Sign of the Crofs Vulgar (i. c, confines
the making of it to rhe Sacred Office) yet he
icruples not to t aflcrt the Validity of Bap- f ^cd.PoL
tifm adminiftred by Women, a Praftice not ^^^-s-S^z.
heard oi in the Chriftian Church bdore Ter- J ^' ^"r^-
tullians time (who inveighs ^ more than jj'iJJVrj?/<r.
once againft it, and feems to Ij intimate that Hxr. c, 41!
it was but beginning in his time, even among t Epijl-jo,
the Hereticks) and is direflly oppofite to 5-' 1^°*,
the Sentiments of Cyprian t, Ba/i/ ^, Epipha- p}y,i ^^„^'
n'lM^^ and leveral other of the Fatheis, and \\Adv.h£r.
the Author of the Apoftoiical Conftiiuti- 79 q^<^ ^ft
ons t, who all appropriate the Power of |?*j^>'''^*
Baptizing to the Sacred Office : But it' '^'^'^'
fliould feem now no great matter, how Vul-
gar God's holy Sign is made, fo that Perfons
CO not prefume to affix the holy Sign of the
Crofs : So applicable to fuch Men is that
of our Lord * to the Scribes and Pharifees, 'f- Mat.i^.
in much the like cafe. If the Keader deiires 9- ^^^A 7-
to have the Application, I had rather he ^' ^
fliould fetch it from that 1| great Man men- p ^p 5^11.
tioned in the Margin, than that he fhould lin^t. iretu
have it from me, though it were but as a h^-
Tranfcriber.

The Senfe of our 0)urch is rrufy exprcjjed
by Mr, Hooker^ who t f^^ys. That bctvceen f eccLPoL
the Crofs zohich Super flit ion honour eih ^j^ /• 5-;> 54S-
Cbrift^ and thit Ceremony oftheCroJs xahicb

Jctveth

[ 80

ferveth only for a Sign of Remembrance^
there is ai plain and great a Difference^ as
between thofe brazen Images which Solomon
fnade to bear tip the Cijlej'n of the Te^nple^and
that which the Ifraelites in the Wildernefs
did adore.

. If I did not believe this to be the Senfe of
the Church off". I muft have a very low
Opinion of her Honefty ^ ner Senfe is, thai
(lie is not Su peril itious in her Praflice, and
the fanne is the Senfe of every Church in
the World : This is the Senfe of the Church
oiRome her felf, whofe Writers frequently
alledge thefe brazen Images o{ Solo?7ion^ to
defend their Praftice ^ and from them I
fuppofe it was borrowed. But perhaps the
Difference is not fo plain and great in it felf,
as it is in the Senfe of the Church of E.
It mufl: be confefs'd indeed, that the Papifts
do honour the Crofs as they do Chrift, as
appears by their Writers •, and that the
Church of E. do difivow and abhor any
fuch thing : But yet it is to be confidered,
that for the making the Image in the Wil-
dernefs there was no Warrant at all from
God, only from Jiaron his High-Prieft; but
for the making thofe brazen Images in the
Temple, there was Dire£lion undoubtedly
given from Heaven, without which Prote-
Itants do generally conclude the making
them had been finful ^ whereas there can
be no Plea of any fuch Authority for the
ufe of the Sign of the Crofs, either in the
one or other ufe. And becaufe I have ob-
ferved, that our Adverfaries are pleas'd to

urge

urge us fometimes with the Examples of
David^ Solomon^ and Hesekinh^ &c. as war-
ranting the Additions made to the Worfhip
of God •, I defire they would try if they can
give any clear proof, that thefe things were
done by them ot their own Heads, and
without fpecial Warrant and Direftion
from God himfelf. We find God was very
Wii^ in his Charge to Mofes^ + to fee that t^«oi.25.
he did all things according to the Pattern ^ ^'^'
fhewed him in the Mount ^ and is it to be ^ \j\ |°*
thought that he was more Indifferent dhoMt comp, with
the Temple than the Tabernacle > Or that f^»rrib,d,4,
his Direftions or his Pattern was not as ex-
aft for that which was to continue the lon-
geft ? Or again, did not thefe noble Kings
know very well what God had faid with
Relation to his Worfhip ? ^ What thing fo- * Veufu
ever 1 command you^ obferve to do it j thou ^}' comp.
Jbalt not add thereto, or dim inijh from it, t Te ""^^^l^^^^*
Jhall obferve to do as the Lord your God hath -j-* pei,^. 5.
■commanded you : you fhaU not turn afide to 32.
the right-hand^ or to the left ? Can they be
fuppofed to loot upon the People only obli-
ged by thefe Commands } and upon them-
felves as more at Liberty than Jofhua^ Mo-
fcs\ Succeflbr, to whom God fpeaks thus s^^^n
■^ Only be thou ftrong and very couragiot^^ ^^^ ' '^*
that thou may eft objerve to do according to
all the Law which Mofes my Jervant com-
manded thee : turn not from it to the right -
hand or to the left ? This is not probable at
all to him who confiders the nature of that
Difpenfation ^ nay, it is certainly falfe, as
appears by exprefs Texts of Scripture. As

God

[84]
God gave to Mofes a Pattern of the Taber-
nacle, To he gave to David a Pattern of the
Temple, and of all other Alterations made
by David or Solomon In the Service of God,
and this Pattern David gave to Solomon^
I Chron.2%. II, to I p. l%en David gave to
Solomon his fon the pattern of the porch^
ice. And the pattern of all that he had by the
Spirit. — -^All this yf aid David, the Lord
made me to under fiand in writing by his hand
upon me^ even all the works of this pattern.
And accordingly Solomon ordered all things
either according to the Cocnmandment of
Mofes or D^^his Father ; 2 Chron, 8. 15,
14. Even the Courfes of the Porters were
fixed by this Rule, as David the Man of
God had commanded. And by the fame
command of God Hezekiah afterward or-
dered Matters, 2 Chron. 29. 25. and ;o. 12.
I only defire the Reader to confult all thefe
places, and efpecially i Chron, 28. from the
I irh to the ipth, and I dare fay he will fee
this matter cleared fully to him.

I fhall add liere, that our Author bring-
ing in thefe Words prefently upon his Ci-
tation of Mr. B. and fetting them in Oppo-
fition to his, feems to leave it to the Rea-
der to imagine, that Mr. B, approved of the
l*opi(h Superftition in the honour they give
the Crofs •, which if he did, he afted very
tinfairly, it being fo plainly (as I have
(hewn) contrary to Mr. Bs Senfe.

Ours is a meer tranfient Sign^which abides
not fo long as to be capable of becoming an Ob-
je^or Medium ofvoorfhip^any more than words
we ufe in voorfhip may do. And

r85 3

And yet Mr. H. makes it ufeful in the
fame way, that Mr. K does a Crucifix or
Death's Head, ^c. and tho' it has been faid,
that you do needlefly agree with the Papift^
in the ufe of this Sign, making it a part of
Worfhip, yet I fuppofe you were never ac-
cufed of worfhipping the Crofs ^ nor was
it ever faid, that you do every thing
that the Papifts do : But yet, however
tranfient this Sign is, it is capable of
being made an Objeft of Worfhip by
fome Men. The Papifts hold, that fuch a
Crofs may be worfhipped ^ and there have
been Perfons in the World, that have wor-
fhipped that which had no being at all, but
was the pure efFe£l of Fancy and Imagination.

2. Our ufe of this Sign is nothing like the
Fopifh ufe of ity for the Fapifis ufe it on all
Occafions.

And therein they agree with the Primi-
tive Church, whofe Authority you alledge
in your behalf ; and if the Authority of
Tertullian, &:c. be a fufficient Vindication of
your PraSice,it is likewife of the Church of
Rome's, in that wherein you differ from her.

And at Baptifm. they ufe it much oftner^
and/a different from our way, that it is not
ufed at the fame nme, nor vnth the fame
Words that we ufe it with.

The Repetition of it will not be thought
vain, if the matter he weighty, and proper
to rhove pious AfFettions, according to what f See Abti
we ate t told about Prayer •, and certainly, ^'^^•94-
our Brethren think the Crofs to be a weighty
itiatter^ who prefer. the impoled ufe of it to
" G thej

C 86 3

thfe Church's Pelce i and it muft be thought
to move pious AfFeftions if it bring to our
Remembrance Chrift crucified, tffc. The
Papifls ufe it at the fatne time the Church
t Sea Tag, of E, does, according to your own account,
i7^« + that is, immediately after Baptizing with
Water in the Name of the Father, ^c. and
fome reafon why it is not ufed with the
fame Words may be hinted afterward.

As to the fecond Yretence^ that the Sign
of the Crofs is a new Sacrament^ I anfvoer^
that we all agree^ That a Sacrament is an
outward and vifible Sign of an inward and
fpiritual Grace given to m^ ordained by
Chriji himfelf^ as a means zvhereby we receive
the fame ^ and as a pledge to affure t^ there-
of-^ and therefore^ ftnce we never fupf of ed
that the Crofs in Baptijm could confer Grace^
nor ever tnade the leap: pretence to a Divine
Appointment for it^ we ought not to be char*
ged as introducing a new Sacrament,

For my parr, I cannot think it worth
while to manage Con troverfies about Words
not found in the Scriptures. According to
Mtn's different Opinions, and Definitions,
they will give the fame thing different
Names. The great thing in queftion is.
Whether Chritt has left any uninfpired Per-
fons Power to inftitute fuch a Badge as this
of thofe that are his Soldiers. We think,
that the Power ot iHftituting fuch a Badge
belongs to Chrift, the Captain of our Sal-
vation s and that he has not authorized
the Magiftrate or Church to devife or ap-
point any fuch thing, I confefs, I cannot

be

[8;]

be of the mind that our Author and fom«
others feem to be of, that JefusChrift him-
felf alone cin inftitute a Sacrament, fo that
the Inftitution of his infpired Apoftles fliould
not be accounted fufficient : In this 1 hear-
tily acquiefcein the Judgment of the Rq'^q- f vpon the
rend and Learned Birtiop oi Sarum t, That Article, p.
*' whatever his (Chrift's) Apoftles fettled ^^p.
^ was by Authority and Commiflion from
'* him i and therefore it is not to be denied,
*' but that if they had appointed any Sacra-
" mental A£tion, that muft be reckoned of
" the fame Authority, and is to be efteem-
" ed Chrifl's Inftitution, as much as if he
** himfelf when on Earth had appointed it.
Our Author feems to require more than an
Apoftolical Infticution,!;/^. the exprefs and
immediate Infticution of Ghrift'himfelf(and
thinks that the Catechijm does fo likewife)
for he feems well pleafed with St. Bafii^
that he reckons it an Ecclefiaflknl Conflitu-
tion or fixed htv.K) of the Church from the Apo-
files Days, Though the Dijfenters approve
of your Definition, yet if you fhould pre-
tend to hy this llrels upon it, they will
with his Lordfliip take liberty to be of ano-
ther mind ^ and I believe no foreign Con-
feflSon will be found to lay fuch a ftrefs up-
on this matter. I confefs, we have no more
Sacraments that may be lawfully retained
in the Church, than thofe two which Chrift
himfelf while on Earth did appoint; and
this is the reafon why we own that thofe
Words are well added in the Qatech'ifm :
But what a firange and felf-contradiftious
G 2 Charge

C8M

Charge would this be > If it were ordained
by Chrift there were no need to call it ^
new Sacrament, or to fcruple the lawfulnefs
of the ufe of it. The Charge therefore a-
gainft you is, that you have introduced that
which in all other refpefts, but that of a
Divine Appointment, has the nature of a Sa-
crament i that you have brought into the
Church (if you will bear with the Exprefll-
on) an humane Sacrament, which we look
upon as a matter not to be found in your
Commiffion -, and here I cannot but with
pleafure take notice to the Reader, that I
have the fame excellent Perfon (whom I
mentioned before) again on my fide : His
Lordfhip declares, thatthe Sign of the Grofs
has been facramentally ufed, which accor-
ding to the Notion of our Author would be
impoffible.
t sp Bur- '' We find (fays t his Lordfhip) the Pri-
nct, 4 vi[c, " mitive Chriftians ufed the making a Crofs
^ 291. « in the Air, or upon their Bodies, on ma-
" ny Occafions ; afterwards, when a Divine
" Vertue was fancied to accompany that
" Ritual A£lion, it was ufed in Baptifm, as
" a fort of Incantation ^ for with the ufe
" of it the Devil was adjured to go out of
" the Perfon to be Baptized : Such a Ufage
'^ of it made it ^facramentalzndi fuperfti-
" tious Aftion ^ and if it had ftill been re-
'' tained in that Form, as it was in the firft
" Reformation of our Liturgy in K. Edward
" yith's Days, I do not fee how it could be
" juflified. I defire the Reader would care-
fully obferve with reference to this moft
excelknt Paffage. i. That

C89 3

1. That his Lordfhip is of Opinion, that
the Crofs was firrt brought into Baptifm
upon a miftaken Fancy, fronn an opinion of
a Divine Vertue that acconnpanicd it j and
really, it is highly reafonable to judge thus
with his Lordftiip in favour of them ^ for
they would have been a very trifling and
impertinent fort of People to bring it in,
if they had not had fome fuch Imagination:
But certainly, fince the reafon that intro-
duced them to bring it in was a miftake, it
becomes us now to caft it out, or at l^alt
not to alledge them in our own Vindication.

2. That his Lordfhip thinks, that we arc
only to confider what vertue is afcribed to
this Sign, that we may be able to judge,
wh-sther it be ufed laqramentally and fupe?:-
ftitioufly.

3. That in the Liturgy his Lordfhip fpeaJks
of, the Crofs wa^ ufed before, whereas it
is now ufed after Baptifm. Immediately
after the fir ft Prayer, the Prieft was to ask,
what the Name of the Child fhould be j
and when the God-fathers and God-mothers
had told the Name, then he was to make
a Crofs upon the Child's Forehead and
Breafl, faying, " N. Receive the Sign of
" the Holy Crofs in thy Forehead, and in
'' thy Breaft, in token that thou (halt not
" be afhamed to confefs thy Faith in Chrift
*' crucified, and manfully to fight under
" his Banners, againftSin,, the World, and
" the Devil, and to cont nue Chrift's faitU-
'' ful Soldier and Servant unto thy lives end.
After this indeed, the Devil was. adjured to

G 3 5^

190]

go out oi the Perfon j but it is not exprefly
faid, that it was in Vcrtue of the Crofs.
Whether the (Lhurch of E. ftill afcribe Ver-
tue to it or no, we fhall have occafion to
enquire in the next place.

If it be/aid^ that we make the Crofs a Sign
betokening out Faith and Chrijiian Fortitude^
becaufe voe apply it in token^ that hereafter
he fhall not be afhamed to confefs the Faith
ofChriJl crucified^ &c. and that therefore we
make it an outward Sign of an inward and
fpiritJtal Grace. I anfwer^ we own it to be
afignificant Ceremony^ as all other Ceremonies
are 5 for we do not account a Ceremony in-
nocent^ becaufe it is, infignificant and imper-
tinent ^ but yet we deny it to be an outward
and viftble Sign of an inward and fpiritual
Grace ; for our Ceremonies are not Seals and
Affifrances from God of his Grace to us^ but
Hints and Remembrances offome Obligation
we are under with refpeU to him.

Our Learned Author does not care nicely
to confider this Ohjeaion, but very Ilightly
pafies it over, as though it were of no man-
ner of weight, and gives not a direfl: anfwer
to any part of it. He grants it to be a fig-
nificant Ceremony, but what is that to the
purpofe > Why is he fo loath to grant it to
be an ©utward and vifible Sign, fince it is
moft nnanifemy fuch? And the Reader tnay
here take notice of the thing fignified by ir,
that is, according to the Canons, the Me-
rits ofchrifi. The Words that I now refer
to in the Canon are thefe (fpeaking of the
l^iimitive times) " At what time, if any

*'- had

*' had oppofed themlelves againft it, they
" would certainly have been cenfured as
*' Enemies of the Name of the Crofs, and
'^ confequently oiCbrifls Merits^ the Si^n
'* whereof they could no better endure.
Now I conceive the pneaning of this is, that
the Crofs is not only an Emblem of the Me-
lits of Chrif^, but that it is likewife a
Pledge to afiure us of our Intereft therein.
The Foundation of this Interpretation of
the Canon is the Canon it felf, in the Latin
Edition (which is as Authentick as the Eng-
iijh) wherein the Words run thus ; ♦' ^uo
" qu'idem j£culo fiquh buic figno fe oppofu-
" ijjet^ declaratiis proculiuhio fu'iffct pro
'• hofle ac inimico nom'ink crucis, ^ proindc
'"' weritorum Cbrifti^ quorum illi teffera ^
'' fignum adeo difplkeret, Thefe Words,
tefj'era ^ fignum, give us a clear Interpre-
tation of the Sign, that is meant in the Eng-
li(h : The general Expreflion of a Sign is by
the tejjera reftrained to that fort of Signs
which are Fledges alfo, as I think tejjera
has properly that Signification. Now that
which the Canon makes the Crofs a Sign
of, has been generally thought by Trotc-
fiants to be part of that which is fignified by
the Water in Baptifm. The end of Bap-
tifm is Twofold ; Remiflion of Sins, and
Regeneration ^ with reference to the firlf,
the Water figniiies the Merits of Chrift s
Blood, through which alone they can be
forgiven, whence are thofe Exprefiions of
his wafhing us from our Sins in his own
Blood, t^c. With reference to the latter, it
G 4 fignifies

C90

fignifies the cleanfing vertue of the Spirit of
Ghrift. In this refpeft the Crofs feems to
be very derogatory to Baptifm, as it is us'd
to fignify that which is intended by the bap-
tifmal Water ♦, and there not being (which
is worth Obfervation) in the whole Office,
the leaft hint given that the Water in Bap-
tifm has any manner of reference to, or Sig-
nification of the Merit of the Blood of
Chrift : Which is not my Obfervation, but
t^'"'tf>^wasmade by Mr. Mede t long ago, who
f5- approves of it. Hitherto I conceive this

fignificant Ceremony does well agree with
the nature of a Sacrament, it is an outward
and vifible Sign.

The next thing that is ftarted in the Ob-
Jeftion is, that here is an inward and fpiritu-
al Grace ^ but this our Author very pru-
dently paflTesover in his Anfwer. He does
not care to grant, and yet is afhamed to de-
ny, that Faith and Chriftian Fortitude are
inward and fpirituaf Graces, as they moft
evidently are, and are as much the Gift of
God as any fpiritual Grace whatever. And
the Grofs is only fit for Felaglansy it it be
,.,, not intended that through God's Affiftance

and Grace he fhall not be afhamed, ^c.
Nay farther, it feems evidejit to me, that
the Crofs is made a Seal, Pledge and Aflu.
ranee to us from God of his Grace ; and
thus (i) Dr. i/^v/w^77£^underQands it, as I
/hall have occaiion to (h«w fiom his ovun
Words. (2.). Our Author thinks thefe
Words of Cyprian now pertinent, whyein
he calls it th^. Seal of Qcd , ziA chi^^fes him-

fetf

L93 3

felf that ExprefTion of the Seal of God, it
being in Cyprian only Signum Dei, (3. ) The
Words ufed at the making the Crofs do
feem plainly to intend this. The Words
are, '* We fign him with the Sign of the
" Crofs, in token that hereafter he fliall
" not be afhamed to confefs the Faith of
" Chrift crucified, and manfully to fight
" undtr his Banner againft Sin, the World,
^' and the Devil, and to continue Chrift's
" faithful Soldier and Servant unto his lives
" end. If a Man defigned to afcribe Ver^
tue to the Sign of the Crofs, and to make it
a Seal and Affurance to us of God's Gr^ce, I
am apt to think he would find thefe Words
would fitly exprefs his Senfe 5 for thus we
ordinarily ufe thofe Words in token : If a
Man fay to another, I give you my Hand,
in token that I will at luch a time give you
fo much Money ,• the meaning is, 1 do now
by this Sign afTure you of it. If a Man at
the bottom of an Obligation fay, in token
whereof I have fet my Hand •, the meaning
is, for an Evidence, Affurance or Wiinefsof
it [in teftimonium] the very Words ufed by
Alex. Ale fun for the rend ring in token in
the firft Tranflation of the Common-Prayer.
And farther, I imagine the pofitive ftrain in
which the Words run, argues this : " We
'^ lign him with the Sign of the Crofs, in
" token that hereafter he fhallnox beafha-
*' med to confefs, OT'r. and not th3it he Jbould
not or ought not to be afhamed, which would
much better exprefs his Obligation and Du-
ty, it that were all that vyas deOgned ^ and

there-

[94 3

therefare, if the only meaning is, We fign
him with the Sign of the Crofe, to hint to
him that it is his duty not to be afhamed,
i!fc. and that he may hereafter remember
it, though he now underftands nothing at
all of the matter, it is very darkly exprefied,
and tke hint is very obfcure and aenigmati-
cal, according to Mr. El'ias Petii, a Presby-
ter of the Church of England, who renders
t Gree\ thefe Words in token thus ^ + i-m tb Mtii^m,
Tranjiat. of In fliort, either theCrofs iseffeftual for the
the lim- gn^ foj which you ufe it of it felf, or thro'
^' God's Grace j if the firft be true, it is re-

quifite to explain how it is fo ^ if the latter
he true, anfwer the Reverend Bifliop of
"i-VfonthsSarumy who tells us, '^ *' That federal a£ls
Ayuc> p. «c jQ vvhich a conveyance of Divine Grace
169. cc 15 jicd^ ^gn Qp}y bsinltituted by him who
" is the Author and Mediator of the New
" Covenant ^ who lays down the Rules
*' and Conditions of it, and derives the
^' Blelfings of it, by what Methods, and in
■' what Channels he thinks fit.

And this kindofjignificant U/ages his ever
been taken up^ without any Imputation of in-
producing a new Sacrament : for^ i . The
Jevoi/b Church changed the Pofiure of eating
the Faljover fromfianding tofiiting^ in token
of their reji arjd fecurity in the L,and of
Canaan;

Very probableit is, that according to the
differing Reafonsof the times, rhtre might
be by God's own Order different Manners
and Cuftoms. This might be fairly fuppo-
fed upon this (ingle Conlideration, that there

were

C95 ]

were infpired Perfons among them. But I
think we have it plain enough in the Scrip-
ture, that feveral things in the firft Inliitu-
tion were only appointed to be oblcrved hy
them in Egypt ^ luch as the fprinkling the
Pofls of the Doors with Blood ^ and the
like is to be judged oi the Po/iure, and
therefore though in Exodus they are com-
manded to eat it with their Loins girt, with
Shoes on their Feet, and a Staft in their
Hand ^ yet no fuch thing was commanded
them after once they were got out oiE^ypt,
See Deut, 16.

There was alfo an Altar ofWit^efs reared
^n the ether ftde Jordan.

It is obvious, that it was a very common
Pradice among the Patriarchs, to erefl an
Altar upon any particular occafion •, and
that this was done by them for two ends,
lofaaifice upon it, and to leave it fome-
times for a ftanding Menr.orial and Monu-
ment of any thing remarkable, that had
happened in the place where the Altar was
fcuilr. In the fliort Hiftory we have of them,
we have no more account of the Direftion
they had for this from God, than of the
Direftion they had for facrificlng at all ^
but I fuppofe both might be neverthelefs
from God. Now when God gave particu-
lar Laws by Mofes^ to the Children of If-
rael^ he altered many things that were law-
fully ufed by thenn before, and particularly
he forbad them the facrificing (as it was
cpmmon before) in any place, and reftiain-
^dit to that one which he himfelf (hould

chufe,

C 96 3

chure, Dei4t. 12. 5. and conrequently it was
not lawful for them to ereft an Altar for
that purpofe : But there was not any Pro-
hibition of Altars for the other ufe, as Mo-
numencs and Memorials of any thing remar-
kable^ andfuch the Altar of Witnefs was,
and of the fame nature feems that Stone to
be, which was fet up by Jofhua himfelf.
Chap. 24. ver. 26, 27. and that which was
ikt up hy Samuel, iSam,y, 12. But neither
of them wasdefigned to be holy, in bearing
any part, or having any intereft in the wor-
Ihip of God i but that which I am treating
of was to (hew, that though they were on
the other lide7<:?A'd^^/7,they never thelefs were
of the Children oilfrael.

And the Synagogue Worjhip^ Rites of Mar-
7'laze^ l^'orm of taking Oathes^ &c. were Jig-
nificant^ and yet "jiere all received in the
pureji times of the Jewijh Churchy and com-
plyed with by our Saviour himfelf,

I know not what it is that our Author re-
fers to in the Synagogue worftiip, and there-
fore cannot give any anfwer to him : But I
know when as innocent a Ceremony as could
be, was look'd upon as Religious, and pref-
fed as fuch, though it were but the wafh-
ing Hands before Meat, (ffc, our Lord refu-
fed to comply with it. Rites of Marriage
1 reckon belong not to Worfliip, but were
purely civil. As to Oathes, the Lawfulnefs
of nking an Oich is eafily proved fram the
Oii Tsltamenr, or the New ; Various
Forms w^re ufed in both, but none is pre-
fer! bed: j ibme Form is neceflary, and fo

that

C 97"]

that it be fuited to the Nature and Defign
of ir, it is no great matter what the form of
taking it is. An Oath is a part of Natural Re-
ligion,confirmed by the Revealed. As it is
an Appeal to God, it is a moft folemn Re-
ligious aft, and a Man is obliged to per-
form it accordingly, and not to fwear by
any falfe God. but as there is no Form pre-
fcribed in Religion, and it is in the power
of the Magiftrate to require me to take an
Oath, the Form in which he tenders it to
me, is to be looked upon as a Civil te(^i-
mony to him, and therefore may in any
Form be taken, fo that it favour not of I-
dolatry or Superftition.

The Chriftian Church of the firfl Ages
ujed the fame liberty^ a^ appears by the Qu-
Horns of the Holy Kifs^ and the Feafis of
Charity,

There is a great difference between natu-
ral Signs (as Killing and Feafting together
are fuch figns of Friendfliip and Love) and
arbitrary ones, fuch as our facramental Signs
are,together with the Sign of the Crofs. A
Kifs, by the unlverfal Confent of Nations
is a fign of mutual Love, and as fuch was
no doubt ufed by the moft Primitive Chri-
ftians, and not as a part of Worfhip. In
like manner. Kneeling is a natural and op>
dinary fign of Humility and Reverence ;
and therefore our Author may obferve, that
though the Diffenters condemned the impo-
fing it upon "all in the Lord's Supper, yet
they never charged that Impofition as the
bringing in of a new Sacrament. But let it

fare

fare how it will with the holy Kifs, I fup-
pofe our Author will allow that it had bet-
ter warrant than the Crofs.

The Fealh of Charity, if lawful, were

no parts of Wor(hip-, but whether they were

f mrkjy lawful as moft think, or unlawful as t Dr.

VoL 2. p, Lightfoot thinks, it is certain, they gave oc-

77^-&M' cafion to many Diforders •, and whatcourfe

does the Apoftle take ? Does he go about only

to reform the abufe, retaining the Cuftom,

and telling them how they might lawfully

ufeit? No, but he lays them afide, and

t Cor. II. goes back to the Inftitution of Chrift, What

I received of the Lord^ I delivered to you.

Deliver us no more, and we fhall eafily

agree.

/ iuight farther injlance in the Ceremony of
Infiifflation^ which was ufed as a fign of brea-
thing into them the good Spirit,

This is indeed an inRance in all things pa-
rallel with the fign of the Crofs ;, and fince
our Author thinks this fo light a matter, he
will do well to (hew what this wants to
make it Sacramental befides Divine Inftitu-
tion^ if here is not an outward and vifible
Sign of an inward and fpiritual Grace, ^c.
there is none at all. When our Author can
vindicate this, we (hall not need to difpute
about the Crofs.

The Baptized Perfonsjiripping off his old
Garments^ in token that he put off the Old
Man.

I (hould rather think the Original of this
was, that lie might (hift his wet Clothes,
if I could find any Evidence of the Baptized

Perlon's

L99l
Perfon's having any on, but really it was
that he inight go naked into the Baptifmal
Water (which was a ufual Cuftom for le-
veral Ages in the Ghrirtian Church) how-
ever, it was afterward according to the Pri-
mitive Genius curlouUy allegorized.

The trine Immerfwn at the mention of each
T erf on in the Trinity^ to ftgnify the belief of
that Article.

This was not in the /nliitution, and was
an unnecefiary Repetition of the Sacrannen-
tal Aflion ^ That Article of our Faith isex-
preffed in the Words ot Adminiliraiioii, and
fince Chrift did not inftitute this Sign ol it,
I don't lee what right Men havu to do fo.

KozQ all thefe things were anciently pra-
Hiced^ without any Jealoujy of invading the
Prercfgative of Chrift^ in infiituting new Sa-
craments.

This is indeed very likely, for it was
vdiile Men llept that the Enenny fow'd the
Tares •, and it was through a want of fuch
a Jealoufy that numberlels Corruptions by
degrees crept into the Church, and that ac
length Chriftianity did as much abound
with Ceremonies as Judaifm : But we dif
pute not what others have thought of things.
but what efteem the things themfelves de-
feive.

3. All the Reformed Churches^ nay the
very Diffenters themfelves^ do ufe fomefym-
bolical A&ijns in their 7ncji Religious Solem-
nities : for^ I. Their giving to the Baptized
Infant a new Name, feems to betoken its be
ing made a nevo Credit are.

Interpret

C lOO 1

Interpret the Diffenten Praftice from
their own Declarations, as they do yours
from the Common- Prayer, ^c. Produce
any of them that ever gave the leaft hint of
any fuch thing. I confefs, there would be
fome Ground for this, if they taught Chil-
dren among the Principles of Religion, that
their God-fathers and Godmothers gave
them their Names in Baptifm ^ but I truft
no fuch thing can be alledged. Nor can
any thing be argued from their Pra£lice,
which is this, to ask what the Name of the
Child is s and then calling it by the Name,
to baptize it in the Name of the Father, G?'^.
and in this matter fome Perfons are the
more cautious, becaufe fome ignorant Peo-
ple are ready to account that Ordinance a
Ceremony of naming the Child ^ and I fup-
pofe our Author knows very well, that it is-
a common thing for the Laity of the Com-
munion of the Church of England to talk,
as though a Child was nor Chriftned by
wafliing with Water in the Name of the
Father, ^c, in Private Baptifm, but were
then only Named ^ and that the Chriftning
is afterwards, at the Solemnity of God-fa-
thers and the Crofs in the Church.

Nay^ the Diffentcrs generally give it fome
Scripture Name^ or one that betokens a par-
ticular Grace ^ and this ii an outward and
viftble Sign^ and thk fometimes of an in*
zvard and fpiritual Grace^ and yet they do
not think it a new Sacrament,

I thought that Words were always ex-
cepted when Men talk of outward and vifi-

bie

ble Signs ; and I conceive that here is no-
thing more, unlefs our Author thinks the
Diffenters write that Name upon the Infant
in token of the Gract : But I hope our Au-
thor will not pretend, that it is all one to
give a Child a Name, and to inftitute a ge-
neral Bidge of Chriltian Profeffion ^ and if
our Author knows that the Diffenters lay
any ftrefs upon what he mentions, he will
do well to Ihew it. They a£l in this mat-
ter as others do ^ for Scripture Nanaes are
generally chofen by Chriftians ; but I ima-
gine it is not commonly underftood by thofe
that chufe the Kime, what particular
Grace is fignified by it •, nor do I think that
ever any Dijffe/irer fcrupled to Bi prize a Per-
fon, becauie he was nanaed Henry^ EdivarJ^

The Diffenters plead for fitting at the
Lord's Supper, becaufe it U a Table gejiure^
and cxpreffes Yellowfirip with Chrifi^ &:c.
This is an ourucard and vifible Sign of an in*
ward andjpiritual Grace^ and yet it h not
account el an addit I. nal Sacrament to that of
the hordes Supper.

A Man mult be in fome one podure in
receiving the Lord's Supper, and by what
better Rule can a Man guide himfelf in fix-
ing upon a polf ure for himfelf^ than the Ex-
ample of our Siviour rind his ApolUcs, ef-
pecially ifthepofture ufed by them appsars
to be fuirable to the Ordinance ? It is evi-
dent, that our Lord did defign In a more
familiar manner to trejt his Difciples in that
Sacrainent, and fcems therefore to have cho-
fen the crdinary Table gelture. Now thould
H it

C 103 3

it be fuppofed, that there Is a miftake as to
the reafon why ChriR and his Difciples fat
at it i certainly we may argue fronri his own
and his Difciples fitting, that fuch a pofture
is lawful, and is very fafe, and is prefera-
ble to thofe that have neither Command
nor Precedent.

And laftl}\ fuppofe that an Independe/it^
when he is admitted into their Church-Cove--
nant^Jhouldfignijy his affent by holding up his
Hand^ or the like ; this is an outward vifible
Sign of no lefs than a new ft ate oj Life^ that
is^ of being made Members ofChrift's Churchy
Sfc. and yet it was never charged upon them
by the Presbyterians^ as introducing a new
Sacrament,

And yet I am nnif^aken in the Presbyte-
rians, if they would have been fo partial
as to fpare them, if they had as much de-
ferved to be fo charged as feme others. I
know not of any fuch PraSlice among the
Independents as that which our Author
fpeaks of That which feems to have given
occafion to this is, That they admit none
into their Communion, but with the confent
of the Church, who therefore do by fome
A£lion fignify their confent: So that aPer-
fon's holding up his Hand fignifies no more
than this, I give my confeiit that he (hould
be admitted into our Society : And whit
refemblance is there beiwecn iliis and the
Crofs > Is the common way of voting in
Societies any thing like an honourable
Badge,, v.hereby a Perfon is dedicated to
ihe Service of Chrift. Whatever account
our Author makes of fuch Inltances, lam

per-

C 10^

perfuaded they will not hi much valued by
thofe that will impaniilly and candidly con-
lider and compare thiffRS.

Bia it ii ohjeUed^ that qu7' Convocation^
cap. 30. declares^ that by the Sign of the
Oofs the Infant u dedicatedy ficc. Now^ fay
they, Baptifm is it f elf a Seal of Dedication to
God^ and therefore our dedicating the Infant
by our own invented way of the Sign of the
Crofs^ is adding a new Sacrament.

I cannot but think this Obj-Gion has
weight in it. Sacranienrs are Federal Rites
between God and us, and do ndc only im-
port the Love and Grace of God to us, but
likewife our Reltipulation and the Dedica^
tion of our Lives to God ^ fo that though it
were granted, that the Sign of the Crofs
wanted fomewhat befide Inftitution to give
it the intire Nature of a Sacrament 5 yet,
according to that part of the C^non, it feems
chjrgejble with jffun/mg to it fdf one eflen-
tial part of Bapcifm. In anfwer to this we
are told,

That he die at ion way properly Jignify a Con-
firmation of our firft Dedication to God^ and a
Declaration of what the Church thinks of a
Baptized Perfon, and the Sign of the Cro/s U
the Medium of thii Declaration,

But how Dedication can properly (igni fy
this I confefs 1 don't underHand. Methinks
there is very little PrOe>riety of Speech ob-
ferved by Men that make Dedication, Con-
firmation of Dedication, Declaratipn, and a
Medium of Dvcbracion^ to be all one and
tlie fame thing. 1 fhould be unwilling that
any one fhould go about to give the bJigni-
H 2 fication

C 164 ]

ficition of my Words after this rate, and fo
I fuppofe would our Author like wife, efpe-
cially if he pretended at the fame time 10
tell what i\ity properly fignified : But how-
ever I obferve, that he denies not that the
Objeftion would he good, if the Crofs were
ufed as a Dedication to God j and thereby
I think he has fairly given away the Caufe
from the Convocation. I will lay before
the Reader the Words of the Convocation jby
which he may judge whether it be thus or no.
The Words are," This Sign they (viz.the Fri-

I " mitive Chrifiia/is) did not only ufc them-

" felves with a kind of Glory, when they met

"'^ " with any Jews, but figned therewith their

I " Children when they wereChriftned, tode-

" dicate them by that Badge to his Service,

% " whofe Benefits beftowed on them in Bap-

" tifm the Name of the Crofs did reprefent.
** Here the Reader may plainly fee, that ihey
afcrihe indeed to Baptifm the Benefits that
are beftowed on us, but that they afcrihe
the other parr, our Reftipulation or our De-
dication to God, to the Sign of the Crofs ;
and therefore, toward the Conclufion of the
Canon we are told, That '' the Church of
'' England \i^x\i retained (till thefign of it in
*' Bjptifm, following therein the Primitive
" and ApoOolical Churches, and account-
'* ing it a lawful outward Ceremony, and ho-
" nourable Badge, whereby the Infant is de-
" dicated totheServiceofhimthat died up-
I* on the Crofs, as by the Words ufedin the
Book ofCorr.mon-Prayer it may appear.
What the Canon refers to in the Book of
Common-Prajer I have already cited, and

can-

C4nnot find any Ground for the proper Sig-
nification our Author has given us of the
Convocation's Words^

Thd( thji is the meaning of our Church is
evident^ if we compare the Office of Baptifm
and the Canon together : Both the Rubric^
and Canon fay ^ That Baptifmis com pie at vaith-
out the Sign of the Crofs : It is expreJJy/aid,
we receive this Child info the Congregation of
Chriff*s F/ock^ before it isfigned with the Crofs*

As though it were not a proper way of
fpejking to fay, we receive this Child, when
we are doing fo, or are going about ic ^ if
it had been fa id, we have received this Child,
it would have pliinly appeared, that thq
Child was received into Chrift's Flock be-
fore. This is^ I confefs, taken care of ia
fonne Tranfljtions of the Liturgy, which
were made fince the Convocation, iho', as
evident and exprefs as our Author judges ic
to be, not in all. But fince the Convocati-
on has given us this as the Senfe of the Li-
turgy, we arc to allow it, that the Child is
admitted into Chrifl's Flock by Baptifm be-
fore the Sign of the Crofs, and therefore it
only remains to enquire, to what purpofe
the Crofs is ufed. The Opinion of our Au-
thor, that the Crofs is a Confirmation of our
Dedication, puts me in mind of an Obfer-
Vation which fome have made, and which
perhaps will give fome light iDto this mat-
ter. They tell us then, that the Ancients,
who ufed Confirmation, made it immediate-
ly to follow Baptifm, (which is plain fiom
Tertullian de Baptifmo) and that when the
■ Crofs was brought into Baptifm, they made
H 3 ufe.

C io6 ]

ufe of it as a Medium of Confirmation. Af-
terwards it was thougiit lit to defer Confir-
mation till fome time<after Baptlfm, and at
length it was made a dilHn6l Sacrament in
the Roman Church (for the Gree/t Church to
this very Day retain the CuHom of the An-
cients, and do not feparate Confirmation
from Baptifm.) The Church of England^
tho' they hold that the laying on of Hands
m Confirmation is to certify the Perfons by
that Sign of God's Favour and Gracious
Goodnefs toward them, yet deny it to be a
Sacrament ^ but have followed the Example
of thofe that deferred Confirmation till fome
time after Baptifm, and the Example of
ihofe that made it immediately follow Bap-
tifm, and fo have two Confirmations, and
are perhaps the only Church in the World
that ever had. This Obfervation that was
made long iince, the Difcourfe of our Au-
thor does fufficiently confirm , and this to
me feems the true reafon, why though the
Papifts ufe the Crofs in Bapttifm, yet they
ufe it not with fuch Words as the Church
does. They reckon that the dcfign of Con-
firmation, which (he looks upon as the de-
fignofthe Crofs. They diQinguifh between
the Family of Chrift, into which we are ad-
rhltted by Baptifm, and bis Militia, the Sign
^nd CharafVer of which is Confirmation :
Now this DilVmaion feems to be efpouled
by the Church, who makes Baptifm indeed
to be the Sign of our being received into
Chrift's Flock, but ufes the Crofs as the fign
whereby we arcdedicated ro Chri.rs Service
as his Soldiers ; to which purpole 1 will fet

down

C 107 3

down the Words of Dr. Hammond^ which I

think are very rsmarkablgt. ** For the Crojs t ^/^

" in Baptifm : Firlt, it is known to all, that ^^''' ' ^''•^•

'^ our Chnfiiin Courfe is 1 Spiritual war fare ]\tZ!^^"

*' under C/jr;y? ourGr^j/ General, Now it *

*' is, and always hath been cufto7?iary over

" the World, that in a Militia there Ihould

*' be fome Banner or Enfign, to wiiich ev«-

" ry one fhould refort, and figi^t undt^r it :

" This hath Cuflom made decent among all 5

" and fuppohng rhat O^fto;u, the Omijjionoi

" it in an Army, is indecent, yet not lo as

" ih'wgs dijhone (I , or breaches oftheLjw

'* of Nature, arc indecent : And the G'f/jr

" on which Chrif}w3iS crucified^ the Emblem

'^ alfo of that J] ate thit every Cbriflian en-

'^ ters into, a constant coiiragious Fatienee

''' for all Affliclions, was by the Pri??ii/ive

''• Chr/Jiians thus uied, as their "^ Symbol 01 "^^'u^^^,^^-

''' /:/?/7^/7 ^ and every Min that isinrolledln ^^]jjy^^

'' the Cbrijlian Militia^ is by him thjt />/'^/A' defcrUym.

" him, (igned with it ^ and this Fraflice be Aug.

'*• ing thus founded^ and received in the

^'- Church, St. Augufline's Words are woith

'• remembringydiudi cannot be denied tohave

'' truth in them 'J ^ Signum cruets nifi adhi- W ^" 7'^'

^' beatur^fivefrontibi^credentum.yveipfi^^' '^ '

^'' ^^//<£ ^//j regeneramur^ ^'c. nihil rite per-

^' Jicitur -^ Unlejs the Sign of the Qrofs be

'"'' ufed either to the Foreheads of the Belie^

*' vers (who are Baptized) or to the Water

'• it felf^ by which we are regenerate^ it is

" not duly performed^ i. e. with (uch Cere-

'•• monies^ as by Cu/lom of the Chi^reh, the

'' Rule of Decency^ belong to it. And if

'^ inft^ad q[ ihQ frequent ufe of it among
H 4 '' the

C 'o8 }

" the Ancients^ even before the cumber fome
" weight o^ Ceremonies came in, we in this
" our Church retain ir only in our folemn en-
" trance into Chrifl's Camp, in token that
*' we mean valiantly ro fight under his Ban-
" ners^ and in confidense that he that thus
'^ figned to Conji ant in eWE^oxy from Heaven^
^' (kv Tvlu vUct^ in this Overcome) will thus
" give Grace, and /f^/ ro us Viffory over
" our Ghoftly Enemies ; What quefiion can
'' can there ever be of the perfed Decency of
" this Ufage among us ?

I have cited the Doftor thus largely, that
the Reader may fee, not only that he ap-
proves of the Drftinftion I mentioned before,
but that he does in the moft exprefs terms,
afcribe vertueto the Crofs, and makes it (as
to Conftantine^ fo ro us) a fign of God's
Grace to he given to us, and a Seal of our
Viftory over our Ghoflly Enemies.

Since therefore the Ycrfun is dedicated in
Baptifm.^ and the Baptijm is acknowledged
com pie at without, or before the Sign of the
Crofs, we cannot be thought to dedicate in
Baptifm, and to dedicate by the Crojs again ;
but the Dedication by the Crofs muf\ be fome-
thing very dijiin^from the Dedication of Bap-
iifm ^ that is, the one is the Sign of Dedica-
tion, and the other the Dedication it felf.

This is a wrefiing of the Canon, which
diliinguifhes the ufe of Bjptiim and the
Crofs, viz. that in Baptifm Chrift's Bene-
fits are beflowed on us •, but that by the ho-
nourable Badge of the Crofs the Infant is de-
dicated to Chrilf's Service, /. e, to fight un-
der his Banners, and be his faithful Soldier.

ThQ

C 109 ]

The Canon no where fays, that a Perfon is
dedicated by Baptifm, and a Man may ju Il-
ly doubt whether they thouglu fo. But
however, f/nce our Author grants that the
Child is dedicated by Baptifm, I fuppofe he
will not fcruple to grant, that Baptifm is a
dedicating Sign •, and therefore, 1 would
gladly know what need there is of any other
Sign, or for what tolerable ufe Men c-jn
bring in a fign of a Sign : After this rate,
you may bring in another fign, to be a fign
of thatfign of thefirft Sign, 6?^. in infinitum.
1 leave it now to the Reader to judge in this
matter. If the Child be before dedicated to
God and the Service of Chrift, by God's own
fign of his Covenant, there is no need of re-
newing it, or of any Confirmation of it, or
of any Medium to declare it. It is imper-
tinent and daring to add any fuch Confirma-
tion to thofe federal A£ls, which arefuffici-
ently valid and efficacious of ihemfelves :
But if the Child is not dedicated by Baptifm
(which feems to be the fenle of the Canon)
then he has not anfwered the Obj^^^lion :
And I humbly move, that thefe Words may
be here confidered which we meet with in
the Rubrick before the Office for Publick
Baptifm, where this is given as one realbn
why it fhould be publickly Adminifired ;
That the Congregation there prefeat may le-
ft ify the receiving them that be newly Bapti'
zed. into the number ofCbrift's Church. In
thele Words it feems fufficiently imply 'd.
that Perfonsarenot received into the Church
by Baptifm, but that that is done prefently
afrer Baptifm, that is, by the Sign of the

Crois i

Crofs ^ and then the Words of the Convo-
cation will look like a poor Evafion,that does
not agree with the Book of Commorf^raycr,
So that it is plainly no other than a 'Decla-
ration the Church maket of what the Baptized.
Ferfon is admitted to^ and what Engagement
he lies under 5 %xih\ch Declaration is there-
fore made in the name of the Church in the
Vlural number^ We receive the Child, ^c.
and do Sign him^ &c.

The Words are indeed a Declaration of
the Engagement the Bjptized Pcrfon is un-
der \ but whoever reads them may plainly
fee, that they are more than fo. The Sign
of the Crofs is (according to Y)x. Hammond^
and I think the Common-Frayer alfo) ChritVs
Banner, under which the Infanc is to fight
againfl-, and overcome all his Enemies •, and
the Doclor's Paraphrafe upon thefc VVorJs
IN TOKEN {viz. in Confidence that Gcd
will thm (by this Sign)^ii;if Grace^ and jeal
to m Vi&ory over our Ghoflly Enemies) is
natural ana eafy ^ but ihe other kind of
Glofles that fome put upon them, are forced
and awkard : But fince our Author tjlls us,
that this is done in the N.une of the Church,
that is, of all that are prclent, this will not
only afFeft the Clergy, but Laity alfo ^ and
a great deal of Satisfaftion is necciriry aboijt
r Protei}. ^^^ Lawfulnefs of this Sign, before a Perfon
fix 2. ^hould^confent to be prelcnt at this part of
pV^o*. the Office, fince he muit thereby neccffirily
^nc/ «/y/jcp have a hand in this Adion. I cannot tell
Morlcy'x whether our Author will care to declare
^T'^c/la- himfelf of that Opinion, t that the Crofs is
my'i ^6r. only J Sign from Man to Mm. HisDifcourle
M' 2^4. flight

[ III 3

might feem to give fuch a hint j for that
belt agrees wich a Declaniion ^ and to fiy
the tfurh, this would be the mol^ favourable
Account of it, if it were true ; hut rhe Ca-
non will not allow of ir,becaufe it is a Bjdge
whereby a Perfun is dedicated to ChrilPs rt:r-
vice, i am not concerned much whither
this be our Author's Sentiment or no. It is
a Remark that defctves to be ohlervcd, by
thofe that think they can wiih thit pretence
jufiify their Praftice^ and efp^cially 1 would
conimend the exprefs Words ol the Canon,
to the Confiderarion of a late Authorj I who + t/;^ (-4^
fpeakine of the Sign of the Crofs, tells us, ^^'"^^ ^['
" We do not ule It as It IS ufed III the Church ^/^.^^^^ ^f
" of Rome 5 tor they ufe it as a Dcdicitivc En^l atd
^ Sign to God, we only as a Token, oz ti'^O'jj'en'
" Declarative Sign to Men. T^'^^^ d

frojfi what ha-jf been Jiiid I hope U appears^ p' ^^\
t hat our Office of Bapt ijm ha-y ma hing in it i hat
f/tjyin the leafljuJlijy a Separation j ram us.

The Reader muU judge as hj fees caufe \
for my own part, tho' i Ihould bias willing
as any Mjn to fee nny way clear into the
Church, being fcnfible of the Miichief of
our Divifions, yet I mult profefs, after all
our Author and fome others have faid, I
cannot fee any thing that fatisfies me of the
Lawfulnefs of having any thing to qo with
this Crofs in Biptilm, either as a Clergy-
man or Lay-man. 1 fhall end with pro;:o
fing what, it is obvious, may be a means of
a happy Adjuflment of this Controvcrfy,
and fo of promoting our Union. Let the
Crofs in Baptifnn bi left indifferent, as you
fjy in it felf it is. I admire rhe Temper of

our

C U2 3

our firfl: Reformers, who in the end of the
firft Edition of the Common? rayer^ have this
Rubrick : " As touching Kneeling, Gr^^;f^,
*' holding up of Hands, knocking upon the
*' Breaft, and other Gelhires, they mjy be
" ufed as every Man's Devotion ferveth
" without blame.

Imitate their Moderation, and let this
Crofling (about which there is a great va-
riety of Opinions) be left to every ones Li-
berty* Let no Minifter be forced to ufe it
inBaptifm, and let no Parent he forced to
have his Child figned with it ^ but where
Minifter and Parent cinnot agree, let the
Parent procure one that will comply with
his deGre : By this means no Man's Conlci-
ence will be galFd, Love and Unity will oq
promoted, which is a matter of far greater
Moment thin Uniformity in fuch a Cere-
mony j and let the Reader judge, whethei;
thofe Men can ever be thought ro have a
juft value for the Church's Peace, and to be
clear of the guilt of Schlfm, who will re-
tain fuch a Ceremony wiich they acknow-
ledge unneceCiry, and which they know
their Brethren account finful, and by which
therefore they neceffitate their Departure
from them.

God Almighty pity a divided Nation,
and give us to underftand and prj£lice the
Things that relate to our Peace, before ih;^
evil Day come upon us, and we (through
our Divifions) become a Prey to our com-
mon Enemy, and be forced to fee our fatal
Error and Miffake, when it is too lite to
retrieve the Mifchief of it. Amen.
F / A' 1 S.

C 113 T

POSTSCKIPT.

'TpHA T which the rather induces me to
X puhlifh thefe Papers at this tioTie, is that
I may have an oppportunity for this Puft-
fcript. I have been fome time concerned in
a Controverfy with Dr. We/Zs^ and have juft
received his Numb.:^, and I.take this oppor-
tunity to let the World know, that 1 don't
think it worth a particular Anfvver : And 1
doubt not, all Judicious Perfons will be 1^o
far from wondering that 1 dcfpife this laft
Piece of the Doftors, that thty will rather
wonder that I honoured fo many of his For-
mer with particular Anfwers. And indeed,
to what purpofe is it for us to Difpure any
longer, when we cann't agree about the Rule
by which this Controverfy is to be determi-
ned > I am for that Rule which is given by
Infpiration of God ^ and. isfufficient to make the
fvan oj God perfeU^ throughly jurmfhed for
every good work ^ and lor comparing onti
Scripture with another, to determine the
meaning of it : But the Doftor, hecaufe we
cann't agree about the meaning of that Rule,
is for appealing to the Notions and Praftices
of the moft ancient Writers. This Rule, as I
have (hewn, the Doflor will not keep to ^
and I do not fee that we are more likely to
agree about their meaning, than the meaning
of the Scriptures. Nor are the ScripLurcs fo
obfcure as he would reprefent them, about
the number ofMinifterial Orders, as any one
may fee by his not alledging any Scripture-
Arguments on his fide, and by the poor An-
fwers he gives to thofe I have ufed. He

pretends

[114]

pretends not toanfwer my Argument from the
Church at Ephefm •, and I think that from
the Church at Jerufalem is very convincing.
1 ask therefore, did not our Lord at his nl-
cenfion leave a Church at Jerufalem ? In
what Hands did he leave it > Was it under
Government or no ? Was it left to the Go-
vtjrnment of one,or of a Plurality with equal
Power? There is good reafon for ihit Title
which is by fome of the Ancients given to
this Church, of being the Mother-Chitrch \
ami file is in my mind rhe hell Platform for
all other Churches to be modell'd by. I do
not much regird the Story o{ ^i, James^ if
fuch a kind of Epifcopacy be affigned him
as I hjve all along allowed to have bsen in
the Church, I will not deny him to have been
Bifhop of Jerujalem \ but tor more than
that, I will not rely upon the Credit o\ He-
gefippus^ whofe Account of him (js we have
ic in Eujehim) is molt demondrahly fjlfe
in feveral Matters of Fa8:.

I denied, that the ApoftlesOfice wa^ ever
Jpl'it into tzw Offices : Upon this iheDoftor
makes himfelf merry, as he has me, and I
doubt not all his other Readers ; for I defy
any Her adit us to forbear laughing at the
Reading fuch Writings. All the Powers of
Preaching, Ordaining, ^c. originally be-
longed to one Office, but afterwards were
fuppofed to be all of them in Bi(hops, and
fome of them in Presbyters ; fo that here
were two ditiinO: Offices fuppofed to be
made outofone^ if the Doftor likes not the
term o'i fplitting^ he may call ic what he
pieafes. L deny the Suppolicion to have any

Founda-

£ "5 3

Foundjtion in Scripture ^ and tho' the Dr.
would have us belitve that Bifhops alone
fucceed the Apolllcs, yet//r/7^/^, an anctent
Writer^ affirms that Presbyters do •, fo that
BKhopsand Presbyters were both fuppofed
to be their Succeffors. I cannot, therefore,
much blame my Expreflion, nor do I know
of a better to put in the room of it. The
Doftor knows, whofe Argument a Wager is
according to our Englifh Proverb : I appeal
to the Judicious, whether the DoQor has not
done more to confirm the Proverb, than to
anfwer his Dehgn of expofing his Adverfary.

That the Pope was an Ufurper fignihes
nothing to our Controverfy ^ for if the No-
tions ot the times axq the Standard of the le-
veral Offices, my Argument isunanrwerabie^
let him be guilty of Llfurpation never fo :
If the Notions of the times are not the Stan-
dard, we muft then come to the Scriptures.
Farther, if M:n's mifiaken Notions of afi
Office will make it nul, then the Offices of
all Popidi Bi(hops and Prieits are nul, fince
this was taken to be part of their Office to
maintain the Jurifdiftion of the Pope, and to
offer a Propiatory Sacrifice for the Living
and the Dead. Farther, the Doftor knows
whofe Offices are then nul, even thofe who
are fuppofcd to derive their fpiricual Jurif-
diftion from the Prince. — ■■

The DoQor lays about him to prove what
1 never denied to be the Papilt's Notion,
leaves out what 1 argued upon j and after
all, if he will look a little tarther, he will
find that Father ?aul telJs us, the Spanifh
Bifl)ops could not gmn their foint^ Li Spag'

nuoli

C 11^3

iiuol'i fi part'irono fenza ale una coza ottenere.
I cann'c tell wherein I have not aded the
Part of an honourable Adverfary in the bufi-
nefs of the Imprimatur : Did I go about to
to affert it wasrefufed him > Was not the
Millake own'd, and the Reafons that led in-
to it alledg'd ? But theDoQior reprefents mc
as filing the Imprimatur honourable^ fo long
oi ^tvoiU thought to be refufcd bim^ but faySj
that as foon as I found it prov'd^ that *tzJoas
not rejm^d him, then it was reprefented by
me as not being honourable ^ but fuch as might
be had without Difiin^icn^ or any Man might
have Jor asking. Whereas I fay exprefly,
that 1 cannot entertain fo difhonourable a
thought of the Univerfiry as this : And I
appeal to thellniverfity, and all the World,
whether the Doftor has herein a6led the part
of an honourable Adverfary. I (hall only
fjy, in Imitation of, Arch-Bifhop Tillotfon^
M-fhinks tho' a Man has all Logick, yet it
might not beamifs to have fome Confcience.
But notorious Mifrcprefentations, bafe Ca-
lumnies, uncharitable Cenfures, and damna-
tory Sentences, make a great part of the
Doctor's Writings j and there is one thing
which he feems to me to forget, tho' I think
no Man fhould in any, and efpecially a Re-
ligious Controverfy : I will therefore fhut
up this Controverfy, by faying to him as
Cyprian to Florentius^ Epilt. 66. p. 169. Ha-
bes tu liter as meas^ ego tuas : in die Jadicii
ante Tribunal Chrifti utr^eq-^ recitabuntur,

E K K AT A. ~^

Pag. 4.1. i. Z9. po would not only SoxQmzn\ Affcrtion
ia the 5th Chip, be falfc, leg. Sox^rmnh Alicrtion in the
5rhCfijp. would not only be falfc. Pig. 55. 1. 16. diU \,

\

:-^

^i^k>m*^

.am.^

i^-^.