Table-gâ—sture and expresses Fellowship with Christ c. This is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace and yet 't is not accounted an additional Sacrament to that of the Lord's Supper 4. And lastly Suppose that an Independent when he is admitted into their Church-Covenant shou'd signify his assent by holding up his hand or the like this is an outward and visible sign of no less then a new state of life that is of being made a Member of Christ's Church and being engaged to all the duties and instated in all the Privileges of it and yet this was never charg'd upon them by the Presbyterians as introducing a New Sacrament Now from all these instances 't is evident how unreasonable a thing it is that our using the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he the Infant shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ crucify'd c. shou'd be thought an adding of a New Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But 't is objected that our Convocation c. 30. declares That by the sign of the Cross the Infant is Dedicated c. Now say they Baptism is it self a Seal of Dedication to God and therefore our Dedicating the Infant by our own invented way of the sign of the Cross is adding a New Sacrament To this I answer that Dedication may properly signify a Confirmation of our first Dedication to God and a Declaration of what the Church thinks of a Baptiz'd Person and the sign of the Cross is the Medium of this Declaration That this is the meaning of our Church is evident if we compare the Office of Baptism and the Canon together Both the Rubric and Canon say that Baptism is compleat without the sign of the Cross It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd to be within the Congregation of Christ 's Flock before 't is sign'd with the Cross Since therefore the Person is Dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism is acknowledg'd compleat without or before the sign of the Cross we cannot be thought to Dedicate in Baptism and to Dedicate by the Cross again but the Dedication by the Cross must be something very distinct from the Dedication of Baptism that is the one is the sign of the Dedication and the other the Dedication it self So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Baptiz'd Person is admitted to and what engagement he lies under Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the Plural number We receive this Child c. and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. whereas in Baptism the Minister alone as the immediate Agent of Christ pronounces in the singular number I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost From what has been said I hope it appears that our Office of Baptism has nothing in it that may in the least justify a separation from us CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd THO' the Communion-Office for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferr'd by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet it has not past free from exception For I. 'T is objected against it that the Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his body and our Souls wash'd by his most precious Blood implies that the Blood of Christ has greater efficacy than his Body inasmuch as the Soul is said to be cleans'd by the Blood of Christ and only the Body by Christ's Body But I answer that at the delivery of the Bread and Wine the Priest saies The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was c. And therefore 't is plain that our Church teaches that the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ Nor do's the mentioning of one alone exclude the other for the Apostle speaks sometimes of the Bread alone 1 Cor. 10.17 and sometimes of the Wine alone 1 Cor. 12.13 and yet all Men must grant that he meant both II. 'T is said that Christ did not deliver the Elements into every Person 's hands with a Form of words recited to every one of them as we do But I answer 1. That this do's not appear from Christ's words for the Evangelists may well be suppos'd to give a short account of the Institution and then what might be particularly said or done to every one wou'd be sufficiently related in being said to be done or spoken to all 2. Suppose that our practice do's vary from this circumstance of the Institution it may be as easily defended as celebrating the Lord's Supper at Dinner-time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves do not scruple 3. Our Saviour commanded his Disciples Matth. 28.19 to Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Man think that when great numbers are to be Baptiz'd together the Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father c. may not lawfully be express'd severally to every Person And why then may not the same be done in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsutable to the Institution of Christ or the nature of the Sacrament and the alteration of it wou'd be for the worse and abate the Solemnity of its Administration See Falkner 's Libert Eccles p. 218 c. III. The last and great objection is against the posture of kneeling at the Sacrament and therefore I shall consider it largely and endeavour to shew 1. That Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament 2. That kneeling is not a deviation from his Example 3. That 't is not unsutable for its being no Table-gesture 4. That 't is not contrary to the practice of the Church in the best and purest Ages 5. That kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes First then Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament For in all the Scriptures God has not given us any express command to determine our practice one way or other and if Authority did not restrain our Liberty we might either sit kneel or stand without the least violation of the Law of God The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament which the Scripture relates in several places (a) Matth. 26.26 c. Mark 14.22 c. Luke 22.19 c. 1 Cor. 11.23 c. were the Representatives
our Church is sufficient for this encounter She designs to make Men good by making them first judicious but some others desire to bring them to their side by catching of their imaginations and so some new device shall in time bring them over to a new Party Dissention it self amongst Protestants weakens their interest and that which weakens one side strengthens another Many that are wearied with endless wrangling are too apt for quiet sake to run to infallibility Some Dissenters prepare the way for Popery by running into another extreme to avoid it By decrying Episcopacy Liturgy Festivals c. as Popish they condemn that as Popish which is decent and Christian and so bring Popery into reputation For men will be apt to say if such good things be Popish surely that which is Popish is also Primitive and Evangelical What we have examin'd is good and probably the rest may be of the same kind It appears also from the History of our late Wars that Popery gains ground by the ruin of our Church For it made such a progress in those times that the Dissenters charge the Jesuits with the King's murther thereby tacitly owning that they had so great a power over some of them as to make them their instruments in it 'T is evident to any man that Popery was not then rooted out (n) Vid. Rob. Mentit de Salmonet Hist des troubles de la grand Bret. lib. 3. p. 165. Short view of the troub p. 564. Arbit gov p. 28. Whitl Mem. p. 279 280 282. Exact Coll. p. 647. 't is notorious that many Priests and other Papists fought and acted for the Parliament against the King Nay in 49 there was a design to (o) ibid. p. 405. settle the Popish Discipline in England and Scotland The Papists generally sheltred themselves under the Vizor of (p) Edwards's Gangr par 2 p. 10. Independency A College of Jesuits was settled at (q) B. of Heref. Narrat to the Lds. p. 7. Come in 52 and 155 were reconciled to Rome that year· Cromwel (r) Cromwel's Declar. Oct. 31. 1655. said that he had some proof that Jesuits had been found amongst the Discontented Parties and Dr. Bayly the Papist (ſ) Dr. Bayly's Life of Bp. Fisher p. 260 261. courted him as the hopes of Rome One of his Physicians (t) Elen. mot Par. 2. p. 347. saith he was Treating with the Papists for Toleration but brake off because they came not up to his Price and because he fear'd it would be offensive We are (u) Hist Indep Part 2. p. 245 c. told also that an agreement was made in 49 even with Owen Oneal that bloody Romanist and that he in pursuance of the Interest of the State rais'd the Siege of Londonderry A great door was open'd to Romish Emissaries when the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were by public order taken away and the Doctrine of the unlawfulness of an Oath reviv'd in those days by (w) Cotton's Lr. Exam. p. 4 5. Simplicit defence p. 22. Min. of Lond. Test p. 18. Williams Gorton c. help'd equivocating Papists to an Evasion as I fear it may the Quakers at this day It was the Church of England that kept out Popery in those times The patient sufferings of her Members prov'd that they were not Popish or earthly-minded and the Writings of Laud Chillingworth Bramhal Cosins Hammond c. kept men stedfast in the Protestant Religion To this we may add that the Papists themselves think their Cause is promoted by our Divisions as appears from 2 Jesuits viz. Campanella in his discourse of the Spanish Mon. cap. 25. p. 157. Printed at Lond. in English in 54. and Contzen's Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. Sect. 9. And they act accordingly for they widen our breaches that themselves may enter and hope that we shall be dissolv'd at last by our distempers They expose Protestants as a Disunited People and ask men how they can in prudence join with those who are at Variance among themselves As for the design of advancing the Protestant Religion to greater Purity and Perfection by dissetling the Church it is not likely to be effected for six reasons First the dissetling that which is well setled corrupteth Religion by removing Charity which is the Spirit of it It lets men loose that cannot govern themselves it moves men to Atheism Idolatry and contempt of the Church and confirms them in sin It exposes the Church for a prey to the Enemy as it did formerly in Africa and Egypt Those that dissent from a National Church generally move for alterations in it when there is a ferment in the State and in such seasons a Church may be pull'd in sunder but there is not temper enough to set it together to advantage State-dissenters generally begin Revolutions with the pretence of Reforming Religion and well-meaning Dissenters when in such hands can establish nothing but what pleases their secular Leaders A change in the Church naturally produces some change in the State and who can secure the event for the better None can foresee all the ill consequences of disturbances When the vessel is stirr'd the lees come up and Religion is made less pure by commotions Politicians promise fair and use conscientious men to serve a turn but afterwards they take other measures Men may intend well but by using the illegal Arm they frequently render that which was well setled much worse by their unhinging of it Secondly in the Times of Vsurpation which began with pretence of a more Pure Religion our Dissentions caus'd great Corruptions both in Faith and Manners The War was Preach'd up as the Christian Cause and many believ'd that God wou'd not lay the greatest villanies to the charge of an elect person The instances of their extravagancies are endless and the Lords and Commons as well as the Ministers were (u) Vid. Ordin Feb. 4. 1646. Min. Testim p. 31. highly sensible of them Thirdly if by Purity of Religion be meant such Doctrine Discipline and Life as the Gospel teaches and a removal of human inventions that Purity is in our Church already and as for her Injunctions they are like those of the Primitive Church Rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom in pursuance of the general Canons in Holy Writ But if by Purity of Religion be meant a fewness of parts as the Quakers believe their way is purer because they have taken away Sacraments and outward Forms by the same reason the Papists may say that their Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is more pure than that of the Protestants because they have taken the Cup from it But it must be consider'd that that which makes a Pure Church is like that which makes a pure Medicine not the fewness of the ingredients but the goodness of them how many soever they be and the aptness of them for the procuring of health Therefore our Church being already Pure the ruin of it will not tend to the purity
all successive Ages of the World I desire them to consider 1. That there is no promise of such a gift by vertue of the New Covenant and therefore no reason to expect the continuance of it and 't is presumtion to promise our selves what God has not promis'd us For as for the Spirit of Supplications Zac. 12.10 't is plain that 't is the same with the Spirit of Grace or of inward Piety and devotion But that there is no such Promise in the New Covenant is evident from what is acknowledg'd on all hands viz. That there are many good Christians who cou'd never pretend to any such Inspiration For all good Christians have a Right to the blessings of the New Covenant and I am very confident 't wou'd be look'd upon by all sober Dissenters as a very rash and unjust censure to affirm that a Man cannot be a good Christian who do's not Pray by immediate Inspiration but is alwaies fain to depend either on his own invention or a Form 2. That as there is no Promise so there is no need of any such immediate Inspiration 'T is true the Spirit will assist us in all necessary things wherein our duty and Spiritual Life are concern'd but 't is an unwarrantable presumtion to expect an immediate Inspiration in Prayer because there is no necessity of it For 1. As for the Matter of our Prayers the Holy Spirit has already sufficiently reveal'd it to us in the Gospel and as plainly instructed us what we are to pray for as he can be suppos'd to do by any immediate Inspiration And therefore to suppose after all a necessity of immediate Inspiration is in effect to suppose that We have neither reason enough to understand the sense of plain Words nor memory enough to retain it But say the Dissenters We know not what to Pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered Rom. 8.26 and therefore we cannot in all cases know the Matter of our Prayers without immediate Inspiration But I answer that the words relate not to the matter but to the Manner of our Prayers What to Pray for as we ought we know not that is we know not how to Pray with that fervency and resignation which we ought unless the Spirit assist us 2. As for the words of Prayer there is no necessity they shou'd be immediately dictated to us since we may use Forms and those Forms with small additions may be adapted to all particular Cases and Circumstances 3. If Prayers are Inspir'd they are equal to Scripture and are infallible and the Word of God because whatever God inspires must needs be so But this I am sure no sober Dissenter will presume to say 4. There is no sign of this immediate Inspiration remaining among us Heretofore all Inspiration was attested by Miracles but the pretended Inspiration of Prayer has no Miracles to warrant it Whereas if the Inspiration be continu'd 't is requisite that proper signs shou'd be continu'd that so we may be able to distinguish that which is Divine from that which is Natural or Diabolical If it be said that the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them I answer that tho' the Scripture may be sufficient to distinguish whether the Matter of the Inspiration be true or false yet it 's not sufficient to distinguish the Inspiration it self whether it be Divine or Natural or Diabolical For 1. 'T is certain a Man may Pray agreeably to Scripture by Natural Inspiration that is by a Natural or accidental fervency of temper as might be prov'd by many instances And in this case how shall he know by Scripture whether his present Inspiration be Natural or Divine 'T will be said perhaps that God Inspires good Men with fervency in Prayer and yet this fervency sometimes proceeds from temper of body and why do's not the want of a sign to distinguish conclude against the Inspiration of fervency as well as against the Inspiration of the Matter and Words of Prayer I answer that we have a Promise of the Spirit 's assistance for the fervency of our Prayers but not for the Matter or Words of them Besides we may easily distinguish whether the Inspiration of fervency be Natural or Divine by our own sense If it be accompany'd with a fixt and constant Devotion of Soul 't is Divine but if it be only a sudden fit and leaves us habitually indevout we have just reason to think it Natural But we cannot distinguish by Scripture between one and the other for both may be agreeable to Scripture And can it be imagin'd that had God meant to continue the gift of Inspiration to us he wou'd have left us thus in the dark concerning it without any certain sign to distinguish whether it be from his Spirit or from an ill-affected spleen or a fever 2. As for Diabolical Inspirations we have sundry instances such as Wier Hacket D. George and John Basilides Duke of Russia who had such gifts of Prayer as ravish'd the Auditors and in the opinion of the most impartial seem'd to exceed the power of Nature and made many think them immediately Inspir'd by God Now since by such Inspirations the Devil may sometimes serve his own ends by recommending false Teachers c. we may reasonably suppose he do's use that method And since he may Inspire Men with such Matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture we cannot by Scripture certainly distinguish between his Inspiration and that of the Spirit But surely 't is blasphemy to think that if God had continu'd this gift of Inspiration he wou'd leave us without a sign to distinguish it from that which is Diabolical And since there is no sign we have all the reason in the world to think the gift is ceas'd But farther we have not only no certain sign of the Divine Inspiration of conceiv'd Prayers but many very certain ones of the contrary I will instance in four 1. The great impertinence nonsence and rudeness to say no worse that are sometimes mingled with these Extempore Prayers and which we cannot attribute to the Holy Ghost without blasphemy 2. That they are so generally tinctur'd with the particular Opinions of those that offer them Whether this be not so I appeal to all the world and if it be so then surely they are not Inspir'd For either we must suppose this gift of Inspiration to be consin'd to one party which wou'd be to stint the Spirit with a witness or else we must blasphemously say the Spirit Inspires contradictions and indites contrary Prayers to Men of opposite Parties 3. Another plain sign that conceiv'd Prayers are not Inspir'd is that that which gives them the reputation of being so is not so much the Matter as the manner of expressing them As for the Matter I suppose the Dissenters will not deny but our Forms may equal at least if not excell their conceiv'd Prayers and therefore all the
of Grace and receive a right to eternal Life I cannot deny but they may be sav'd without Baptism by the uncovenanted Mercy of God but then the hopes of God's mercy in extraordinary cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed Means to which they are annex'd Nay Infants do by Baptism acquire a present right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly to the promises of the Spirit 's assistance which they shall certainly receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes Now since these are the benefits of Baptism and since Infants are capable of them let any impartial Man judge whether it is more for their benefit that they shou'd receive them by being Baptiz'd in their infancy or stay for them till they come to years of discretion Is it better for a Child that has the Evil to be touch'd for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the benefit Or is it best for a Traytor 's Child to be presently restor'd to his Blood and Estate and his Prince's Favour or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restor'd till he is a man I must add that Baptism laies such an early pre-engagement upon Children as without the highest baseness and ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract For there is no person of common Ingenuity Honour or Conscience but will think himself bound to stand to the Obligation which he contracted in his Infancy when he was so graciously admitted to so many blessings and privileges before he cou'd understand his own good or do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them And therefore the Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such a beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood wou'd be apt to find out so many shifts and excuses and make them regret to be Baptiz'd 2. Infant-Baptism is very Expedient because it conduces much to the Well-being and Edification of the Church in preventing those scandalous and shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons wou'd be apt to make in these as they did in former times to the great prejudice of Christianity Since therefore Infant-Baptism is not only Lawful and commanded by the Church but most Expedient in it self and most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians and to the Will of Christ it must needs be concluded that there lies the same obligation upon Parents to desire Baptism for their Children as there do's upon grown Persons to desire it for themselves For what Authority soever exacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion laies at least an implicit obligation upon Parents to see that it be perform'd For if in the time of a general contagion the Supreme Power shou'd Command that all Men Women and Children shou'd every Morning take such an Antidote that Command wou'd oblige Parents to give it to their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs oblige the Parents to bring them to it What I have here said about the obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children to Baptism concerns all Guardians c. to whose care Children are committed And if any ask at what time they are bound to bring them to Baptism I answer at any time for the Gospel indulges a discretional latitude but forbids the wilful neglect and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof V. As to Communion with Believers who were Baptiz'd in their Infancy 't is certainly Lawful and has ever been thought so nay 't is an exceeding great sin to refuse Communion with them because that wou'd be a disowning those to be Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such Nothing now remains but that I take off two objections First 'T is said that Infant-Communion may be practis'd as well as Infant-Baptism But I answer 1. There is not equal Evidence for the Practice of Infant-Communion because St. Cyprian is the first Author which they can produce for it and then the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Cyril of Jerusalem mention it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and St. Austin in the Fifth whereas for Infant-Baptism we have the Authority of St. Cyprian and a whole Council of Fathers over which he Presided of Origen Tertullian Irenaeus St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of it as a thing generally practis'd and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practis'd in the Church I may add that none of the Four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen do's of Infant-Baptism 2. There is not equal Reason for the Practice of it For Persons of all Ages are capable of Baptism but the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Perfection instituted for the remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform Nor is there an equal concurrence of Tradition or the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture for Infant-Communion it being grounded only upon John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Now 't is doubtful whether this be meant of the Eucharist or no because it was not as yet instituted but if it be so to be understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the chief end of its Institution Do this in remembrance of me Nay the Western Church discerning the Mistake upon which Infant-Communion was grounded have long since laid it aside tho' they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism But in truth the practice of Infant-Communion is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or cou'd be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly Baptiz'd And therefore the practice of Infant-Communion fully proves that all the Churches wherein it ever was or still (e) As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies is practis'd were of opinion that the Baptism of Infants is as Valid and Lawful as that of grown Persons Secondly 't is objected that Children who have not the use of Reason cannot know what a Covenant means and therefore they cannot contract and stipulate tho' St. Peter says the Baptism which saveth us must have the Answer or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God To this I Answer 1. That this Objection is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as against Infant-Baptism 2. That God was pleas'd to Seal the Covenant of Grace unto Circumcis'd Infants upon an implicite and imputative