far to heal us could we obtain it He saith that any one that hath seen them knoweth it to be a mistake to say it was published by John Fox Ans His Reader must be a strong believer and take much on his word 1. I have seen them and spake with men of great understanding that have seen them that yet judge it no mistake 2. The Preface of the publisher is like his Style 3. It is called Praefatio I. F. And can every Reader know that I. F. meaneth not John Fox 4. Ordinary Tradition saith it was Fox's And what should I sooner believe in such a case Instead of proving that they have all a power to their condemnation which we see they exercise not let him procure a real power declared and granted and it will do more than these words Sect. 23. But when it comes to the question whether me may so much as call a sinner to repentance by name before the Church who rejecteth all more private admonition he puts the question whether the obligation to admonish publickly an offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick authority c. Ans The first question is whether Christ have not made his Church so different a thing from the World that they should be openly differenced by a Communion of Saints 2. And whether he hath not instituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it And 3. Whether any man have authority to suspend this Law or Office And then 4. I shall grant that not only Discipline but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hic nunc in the present exercise when else the exercise would do more hurt than good 5. But are these Laws good that forbid it and should we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration Sect. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exercising true Discipline which is most true and seems thence to defend the forbearance of it with us Answ I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Christ's ends and that he would have it continued to the last and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith and that making small difference between the Church and the World tends to Church destruction and to the reproach of Christianity and the utter undoing of millions of Souls And though Pope and Prelates have abused it to captivate Princes and Nations the just use of it he knoweth is mentioned by the Universal Church and visibly recorded in the Canons of the several ages Though some Erastians are of late against it And Jesuits and worldly Protestants can dispense with it when it would hurt their worldly Interest and turn it chiefly against Gods Servants that displease and cross them Sect. 25. p. 284. He saith The want of Discipline in the Parish Churches was never thought by old Nonconformists destructive to the being of them Answ They did not confound the Power and the Exercise Nor what the Ministers office is indeed and from God and what it is by the Bishops Mind and Rules of Conformity I say as they 1. The Exercise may be suspended without nulling the Power or Policy 2. They are true Pastors and Churches by Gods will against the will of those that would degrade them Sect. 26. But supposing every man left to his own Conscience for Communion 1. He saith the greatest Offenders generally excommunicate themselves Answ 1. And is it your way to leave all the rest to their Consciences and yet to preach and write against and lay in Jail dissenting godly People that communicate not with you 2. And are not all these Offenders still Members of your Church Albaspineus complaineth of their Roman French Church that he never knew any further cast out than from the Sacrament and left still to other parts of communion as Members And so do you by thousands who are all Sons of your Church but we are none He is again at it what Church I was of and I have told him oft enough CHAP. VIII What the National Church of England is Sect. 1. ACcording to the Doctors Method we come now to the Explication of one of the terms of our Controversie so long and loudly called for viz. what the National Church of England is which we must obey and from which we are said to separate p. 287. And the answer is such as may tell Dr. Fulwood and him that it's time to give over wondering that I understood not what they meant by it Sect. 2. Our question is of the Church Policy and Political Form All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community from a Political Body This is essentiated of the two constitutive Parts the Pars Regens and Pars subdita the former is much like the Soul and the later the Body The Ruling Part is called the Form by most and the sorts Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical or mixt the form in Specie as the rational or sensitive Soul to Animals But the Relative Form is the Union of both in their proper order Such a body Politick is a Kingdom a City a Church in the proper and usual sense But in a loose sense many other things may be called a Church As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form not yet received 2. An occasional Congregation about Religion as Prisoners that pray together Men that meet about a Religious Consultation or Dispute c. 3. Many Churches as under one Christian Magistrate as an accidental Head 4. Many Churches associated for mutual help and concord without any governing Head Either of one Kingdom or of many 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love in distant parts of the World None of these are Churches in the political Sense but are equivocally so called But Politically 1. All the Christian World is one Church as formed by their Relation to Christ the Head 2. All single Churches that have Pastors to guide them in the Essentials of the Pastoral Office are true Churches formed by this mutual Relation These two are undoubted 3. The now Roman Catholick Church is one by Usurpation as informed by one Usurping head 4. A Patriarchal Church is one as Governed by a Patriarch 5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan or as mixt where Aristocratically others are joyned with him 6. An Archiepiscopal or Diocesan Church that hath particular Churches and Bishops under it is one as headed by that Diocesane Jure an injuriâ I dispute not 7. A Diocesane Church of many score or hundred Parishes having no Episcopus Gregis or true Pastors and Pastoral Churches under him but only half Pastors and Chappels that are but partes Ecclesia is one even of the lowest sort in their opinion as headed by that Diocesane 8. A Presbyterian Classical Church is one as headed by the Classes 9. A
more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is Plea p. 42. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say The Schism doth not lie on those that separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers Ans It 's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passionate 1. I never said that supposing them sinful will justifie a false supposer but have oft said the clean contrary their supposing is of his forging 2. I said not the Schism doth not lie on those that separate but only that it's Schism in the Imposers This also is his Fiction 3. And I said not and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries But how much of this he said once himself see in my Chap. 1. Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction which should have gone before Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance or error of conscience Ans What a deal of labour might he have spared himself and us if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning we thankfully accept your late distinction we ever desired here to put it to the Issue If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin If we do not prove some parts of Conformity for one is enough to be plainly sinful which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Communion and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion which I ever disswaded them from let the blame be ours Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in owning Separation And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally but not as Churches as thinking they want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power but as Oratories and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches Answ If these untruths had been made without evidence only and not also against evidence they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration But now they are not so when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pastors for true governed Churches and prove that they have true Bishops Episcopos Gregis whether the Diocesans will or not because Gods Will and not the Investers instituteth their Office and measureth their power and the people shew their consent by constant Communion Sect. 36. Then because I never gathered a Church nor baptized any in 20 years nor gave the Sacrament in 18 he would know what Church I have been of all this time and he supposeth of no Church Ans I thought he had done with this before but he thinks it an advantage not to be so easily let go Would he know 1. What my Thoughts were 2. Or my Church-Covenant 3. Or my actual Communion He shall know all 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors and the Churches true Churches I cannot say so of every Curate 2. I made no Covenant with any of them If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism Infidelity and what not 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy Sermon and Sacrament as with true Churches with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail and then I could not And though I was accused by many for hearing a swearer I told them he swore not in the Pulpit I heard his poor Curate constantly when I was accused for hearing a Drunkard and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit But I must tell you I communicated also with some Nonconformists And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me which I am loth to dispute 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate or the Non-resident Dean Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced living in such a Parish is bound toâ—ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul and aâ— the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal private and publick Offices 4. But I would ask the Dean himself whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once The Reasons of the Quaere are 1. Because by them a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case as to be a constitutive Regent Part of many 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house and half at a City house and are themselves part of the week or day at one and part at the other And they make Covenants with neither but what actual Communion intimateth Q. â— And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once so far as I communicate oft with both I therefore answer his question further what Church I was a Member of 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church Is that none and yet is in the Creed 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associated in one Reformed Religion 3. I was a Member of the Church of England both as a Christian Kingdom and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion 4 I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury so far as living peaceably in it and submitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Communion could make or prove me And of others two at once so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me If this will not satisfie you I have proved before and oft to some Independants that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church whether the
King be of any I know not Sect. 37. But p. 152. he comes upon me why I thought it not my duty all this while to Baptize Administer the Sacrament was I not solemnly bound by Ordination to one as well as the other Presbyters of old were rarely allowed to preach Ans 1. You tell the World what measure we must expect from such as you If we had all forborn any Church gatherings and Pastoral undertaking of Flocks and both Sacraments c. and only preached as loth to offend you more than needs our accusations had but been the greater which incourageth your more ingenious Dissenters to do what they also are accused of 2. Do you not know our Reasons They are these 1. Because we suppose there is a greater want of our preaching than of our administring Sacraments And we would obey the 〈…〉 in all things lawful and go from you and offend you no further than 〈…〉 will justifie us 2. Because a Ministers Relation to the Church 〈…〉 and to the world ceaseth not when his relation to a Parish Church may cease And we have not the same obligations to give the Sacrament to all the Christians or World where we preach as we have in a Parish Charge Paul thanketh God that he baptized not many Corinthians because he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel nor is the terrible charge 2 Tim. 4. 12. equal as to both 3. Our Ordination bound us to preach and administer Sacraments when we are thereto lawfully called And we were so called to one when we were not to the other nor were all of us so called alike But when we know that this way doth as much offend you we may go further in due time Aud do you in one part of your Book blame us for going further than the old Nonconformists as you thought and in the second thus accuse us for not going further Sect. 38. He is again at his talk of only occasional Communion And had his mistake no Occasion yes he that readeth my Books may see what that is 1. When I have said that some Parishes having not capable or called Pastors I take to be no true Political Churches but yet can communicate with such as Oratories or Chappels 2. That some true Churches I communicate with in transitu or occasionally as strangers whose Discipline and Ministers Calling I am not bound to take account of 3. I tell those that withdraw too far and take some true Churches for none that were it so they might occasionally join with them as Oratories 4. And those that dare not commit their Souls to the Pastoral Conduct of some weak and bad men that yet they may occasionally communicate with them upon great and urgent Reasons And here he gathereth his oft repeated untrue Reports Sect. 39. p. 156. He grants there is no Separation where there is no Obligation And he will prove us obliged to constant Communion with them 1. Because we must use all lawful means for Peace and Unity Ans 1. We are ready to prove that our Conformity nor our forbearing to preach the Gospel are no lawful means 2. Can you as well prove 1. That it is not lawful for you to joyn with us 2. And to forbear silencing excommunicating fining and imprisoning us Was it no lawful means for Peace and Unity to have forborn imposing all the Covenants Professions Subscriptions Oaths and Practises of what you call indifferent and we think sunful 3. And is it not lawful for Parents to enter their own Children at Baptism in Covenant with God 4. Is it unlawful to Christen such as scruple your use of the Cross 5. Or to receive those to Communion that scruple your Gesture 6. 〈…〉 forbear Canonical Excommunicating all professed Nonconformiâ—… Land 7. Or to let Lords and Gentlemen choose any Nonconfoâ—… to be Tutors to their Children whilst the Papists may send theirs to Doway St. Omers c. He saith he is perswaded it is one of the provoking sins of the Nonconformists that they have been so backward to do what they were convinced they might with a good conscience Ans Woe to us if we be not willing to know our sins But 1. If you will tell me of any one lawful thing that I have omitted that tended to Peace I will thank you 2. An indifferent thing is no means of Peace when it will do more hurt than good To cease the Ministry we durst not To use some indifferent forms in your Churches we could not being cast and kept out And to use the same to those that are against them when it will hurt them and procure no peace with you and those have sped worst from you that have come nearest you aud nothing will serve but all what tendency hath this to Unity You know my own case proveth all this I regarded not the censures of any that go too far so as to keep me from doing what I judged lawful And did it tend to peace No one sends me to Jail when I went twice a day to his Church Others say He is like an Ape that is so much the more ugly because he is like a man Another more sober saith I know not what to make of Mr. B. He communicateth with us and he preacheth to the Nonconformists Like a man that will go one step on one side the hedge and another step on the other And this man is much in the right for I say still It is the separating hedges in Christ's Vineyard that I hate and the enclosing hedge that I am for I have Business Friends Relations and great Duties on both sides the hedge some with you and some with others And if your hedges would separate Parents from Children Husband and Wife Christian Neighbours c. causelesly I will not be so separated but do my best to pull down that hedge And again consider whose sin it is that so many lawful things are denyed us for Unity Hold but to your Rule here and we are agreed And he seemeth to consent For Sect. 40. p. 176. Of the Rule Phil. 3. 16. he saith If I will but allow that by virtue of that Rule men are bound to do all things lawful for the preserving the peace of the Church we have no further difference about this matter Ans It 's well he will say so much of the Rule we gladly consent Then all the question is what 's lawful on both sides I add one Q. more Is it not lawful for peace to forbear forcing men to disoblige 1000 whom they never knew from being obliged by an Oath and Vow to that part of the matter which is good If it be the conjunction of some things bad that disobligeth them then he that inserteth a bad thing is free from all obligations of his vow even in materia licita necessaria And if the 〈…〉 of imposing Power be made the cause whether is the Corâ—… Oath imposed by a superior Power on the King or
the people that had before declared themselves for Proclus did not himself bring him in but got Celestine Bishop of Rome to write to Cyril of Alexand. John Bishop of Antioch and Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica to satisfie them to do it and so got Proclus in What is this against the peoples right These be all the Doctor 's instances on this point § 45. His 5th note is On the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing than before Because of Princes endowing Churches the Royal assent was fit though a Bishop was chosen by the Clergy and People Answ Who would strive against so friendly a disputer that goeth on to say the same as I when I doubt his party will say that he Prevaricateth § 46. But he saith The Royal power overthrowing the Papal reserved the power of nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative which being allowed in frequent Parliaments the consent of the people is swallowed up therein since their Acts oblige the whole Nation Answ 1. I see we yet understand not how much of the Irenicon is retracted and whether he yet hold not that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine Institution or we be not bound to be for that which King and Parliament are for But we undertake to prove the contrary and have done it 2. What if Parliaments gave the King power to chuse all Folks Wives and Husbands Physicians Tutors Diet Trade c. our Right were not swallowed up by this though it were called the King's Prerogative Much less where Gods Institution and the very Law of Nature have forestalled them and neither God nor Man gave them that swallowing power 3. I oft answered that Tythes and Temples may be more in the Magistrates power than Pastoral relation and power of the Keys § 47. He saith p. 326. That the inferiour right of Patronage is justly thought to bear equal date with the settlement of Christianity in peace and quietness Answ 1. It was scarce ever setled in peace and quietness to this day Much less during the Saxons Heptarchy 2. I have proved that the Universal Church was far from making Lay Patrons the chusers 3. It is less lawful to sell our Souls into slavery than our bodies And if our Ancestors had said to some rich men You shall all chuse our Pastors and we will stand to your choice if you will build us Temples and give them Lands it would no more bind us to stand to their bargain than if they had said Give us House and Land and you shall chuse our Diet Wives Physicians c. we say if your kindness be turned to our hurt take your house and land or give it to whom you will we will not sell our souls and Church-rights at such a price § 48. His 6th conclusion is That things being thus setled there is no ground for the people to resume the liberty of Elections Answ 1. I need not over and over repeat the answer to his reasons 2. If the liberty of Election be not resumed which was not that which I pleaded for as he would all along insinuate yet the liberty o free consent or refusal may be necessary § 49. Reader again the true case is like this following Parents have a ruling power to chuse Wives and Husbands for their Children Guardians have much power over Orphans in it Magistrates may make Laws to restrain unlawful Marriages Children are bound in these cases to obey Parents unless they chuse to their apparent hurt or danger and to obey Guardians and Magistrates in their proper Laws But 1 It is for all this no Marriage till both parties consent 2. And all the said power over them is limited and but directive and not destructive to their own consenting power Even so in our case 1. The Ordainers are the first Judges and have a power like Parents and none should be received against their wills unless they would betray the Church 2. The Magistrates may make ordering restraining Laws that no unworthy person shall be tolerated 3. A limited power of nomination may be left to Patrons as Guardians who have power to help the Churches but none to hurt much less to ruine them 4. But it is not a Church related as Pastor and Flock till both consent These things are evident truth though some would bury it in a heap of words § 50. I would also if I could have drawn the Doctor to resolve me this doubt Whether the power of Parents and Husbands or of Patrons yea or Princes be greater in the choice of Food Physick and so of a Tutor a Pastor or a particular Church Communion And if a Parent or Husband say I command you to hear and Communicate with such a Pastor and Congregation and the Patron say the contrary yea or the Prince or Law which is to be obeyed And to whom this Family Government most belongeth And why Father and Mother rather than Prince and Priests are named in the Fifth Commandment § 51. p. 329. He reciteth my reasons why Parliaments cannot take away our free Receptive consent and he again feigneth that I say all this for the peoples chusing power yet confesseth I deny not the Magistrates or Patrons power of their own Gift The Case of Sacrilege I leave to their Consciences § 52. p. 330. But saith he Anabaptists Quakers and all may pretend a care of their Souls and so leave the Minister only the Temple and Tythes Answ 1. And Anabaptists and Quakers will have a care of their Souls when you have said and done all you can against it A prison will not overcome it 2. So Turks Socinians Papists or Anabaptists if you will when they get into power may pretend that they are fitter to be trusted with mens Souls than men with their own And so Prelates may say But is nothing true that men can abuse and misapply And to me it is something though it should be nothing to you 1. That nature obligeth and disposeth every man more to care for his own soul than it doth the Patron to care for others 2. That many hundred or thousand men are not all so like to mistake and miscarry about their own Souls as one Patron is that is far from their hearts 3. That it is a matter more dangerous to trust thousands in one hand than in many as it would be in a storm to put all into one boat If that man miscarry he endangereth multitudes If another man miscarry it is but for one 3. To have a self-saving power and to have a self-destroying power differ with men that hate not distinction So little can a man know what we say by this Doctors Answers that a stranger would think by him that we were quite of another mind I never said Quakers or any others may have whom they will If they chuse men uncapable the neighbour Bishops or the Clergy may admonish them and renounce his Communion And the
Magistrate may restrain him and refuse to tolerate an intolerable man And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Bishops or Patrons no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better Many Negatives are safe § 53. He saith The prophane have right to their own souls and to the care of them and therefore are equally concerned with others to chuse Answ It is sad with the Church when they need to be saved from such reasonings of their great Teachers 1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuse men for others Souls to do that which they will not have done for their own The question is whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Christs terms He refuseth and will not else he ought not to be refused And shall he that refuseth Communion chuse one to give it others because he hath a Soul himself Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuse Bishops for the Church while they refused to be of the Church themselves Shall he that will not be of the Society chuse for the Society 2. We distinguish between what a man may be forced to and what not He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remission and Communion because no unwilling person hath right to it But an ignorant person may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer to hear what can be said for his conviction For truth may conquer the unwilling But none on this pretense can hinder the Church from hearing its own Pastors nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans Hereticks or Heathens § 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me on the old false supposition that I make the people the sole chusers and not only plead for their free Negative Vote though chusing also but not alone was the old way And here tells us of the tumults that would follow Answ 1. So they would if the people chose in France Spain Italy And yet I would they did No humane actions are free from inconveniencies which are not to be cured with a mischief 2. Let him name me ten places that have suffered so deeply by the peoples choice as I can tell him of ten thousand that have done by the choice of Prelates Patrons and Princes and I will confess my errour It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moscovy It is not the people that have this many hundred years chosen all the Popish Bishops Mass-priests c. in Italy and most of the Roman Church even in Spain France Bavaria c. 3. I told him but had no answer that not only the Innes of Court but also Black fryars Aldermanbury and such other places as have chosen their own Teachers have peaceably had as happy a succession of Learned Godly able Pastors as any place in London or in England 4. It 's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light so reveal it self to humane nature that usually most of those that are loth to be holy themselves would have a Saint and an able man 5. Doth he think in his Conscience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious and free from solicitations favour and respect of persons than the majority of the Communicants of such Churches 6. If the Parsons first admit great numbers of profane and wicked men to be Communicants and then tell us how unfit these men are to chuse they do but condemn themselves § 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but say We judge we think c. the things unlawful but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful he finds none Answ If this be true then they that never found our arguments never answered them If it be not true it is not well Then you here and Mr. Falkener Fulwood Durel c. have not yet answered any of our arguments Remember this 2. Though I did not argue but name the things in my first Plea you and others took it for arguing and we ever craved leave to do it 3. Is it true indeed that there are no arguments in our Writings 1660. and 1661. with the Bishops nor any in my Book of Concord or Treatise of Episcopacy nor in my old Disputations of Church-Government nor in any other mens Books these eighteen years I doubt the angry Bishops will think that in my Treatise of Episcopacy there is some sort of Argument and that my Book against Sacril Desertion of the Ministry hath some and that an Apology for our preaching now in the Press hath some But if there be none accuse us of none CHAP. X. Of the Imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and denying Baptism to the refusers § 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our charge against the Church though he never found any Arguments as aforesaid And I. Why doth he silently balk the chief things which I had named will this satisfie Conscience will excusing some things make others lawful II. As to what he saith for the Cross I have so fully answered it twice to Mr. Cheney and once to the Impleader that I am loth to repeat all again In short 1. He saith the Church intends it not for a sign of Immediate dedication Answ 1. What is the Medium 2. What if it were not Immediate 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very present dedicating act to use the sign and expressing the dedicating signification 4. The words of the Canon are To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent And after the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross And the service is named Christianity in practice to fight under his banner c. 2. He saith In baptizing the Minister acts by Authority derived from Christ but at Crossing he speaks in the name of the Church We receive this Child c. Answ 1. It 's meet it should be so that Christ's Sacraments be used by Christ's Authority and mens by mens 2. But I hope this is but a quibble and that notwithstanding the word we the Minister as Christ's Minister and in his name saith we receive this child when even the absolved are to be received by Christ first and then by the Church I will not else aggravate the ill consequences § 2. He before saith Was the Cross a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men Answ The Canon saith expresly twice To dedicate them by this badge to his service And an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service And the Rubrick which we must subscribe refers us to the Canon for the true sense and reason of the Crossing 2. Is Baptism and the Lords Supper a sign to God or to man It is a sign to man for God God knoweth