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, 
 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, 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, w e uld 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, 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^-^.