The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 29
Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examin the charge against our Church. For Mr. A. saith, An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace, whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Worship. I answer,
1. An outward visible sign between men representing the duty or engagement of another, is no part of Divine Worship at all, much less a substantial part of it. There are some visible signs from God to men, representing the effects of his Grace to us; and those we call Sacraments; there are other signs from men to God, to testifie their subjection and dependence, and these are acts of Worship; and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action; and these are significant Ceremonies, such as the Cross in Baptism is. For, after the Child is baptized and received into the Church, the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, &c. To whom is this token made? Is it to God? no certainly. If it were a permanent sign of the Cross, would it be for a Testimony to God, or to Men? When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, was this a dedicating sign to God, or a declarative sign to men? And what if it represents subjection to Christ as the Redeemer? must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace, as the Sacraments are? It represents the Duty and not the Grace; the Duty is ours and may be represented by us; but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that, because he alone is the Giver of it.
2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God, but of obligation on the person. It is true, that in the 30 Canon it is said, that this Church retains the sign of the Cross, following the example of the Primitive and Apostolical Churches; and accounteth it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honourable badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof, we must consider, That Baptism is declared to be compleat before; so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or vertue of it, nor being omitted, takes nothing from it; as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church. This therefore, is no part of the Baptismal Dedication. And the Minister acts in a double capacity, when he doth baptize, and when he signs with the sign of the Cross: when he baptizeth, he acts by vertue of Authority derived from Christ, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, &c. Which being done, and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism; he then speaks in the name of the Church, varying the number; We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, &c. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number; and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one, do make use of this sign of the Cross, as the Rite of Admission into the Church, and of his obligation to behave himself, as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense, as no doubt it was so intended,Plea for Peace, p. 178, 179. all the difficulties about a Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sacramental Sign, concerning which some have made so great a stir,Defence of the Plea, p. 4…. will soon appear to be of no force. For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism? Let us suppose an adult person to be baptized, and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church; and the Ceremony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant, i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to doe among them; the Pastour of the Church then baptizes him, and immediately after, upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant, he saith in the name of the Church, we receive thee into this Congregation, and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter behave thy self as a Church-member ought to do among us. What harm is there in all this? And yet is not this a Professing, Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sacramental Sign, as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us? Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent? Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony? Doth it not import an obligation lying on the person? Is it not therefore dedicating, covenanting, and sacramental, as much as the sign of the Cross? Why then should this be scrupled more than the other?
And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter;plea … p. 18. who supposeth that the Minister speaketh in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross; and as God's Officer from him, and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross; whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church, as evidently appears by those words, We receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock; and then follows, as the solemn rite of Admission, And do sign him with the sign of the Cross, &c. All publick and solemn Admissions into Societies, having some peculiar Ceremony belonging to them. And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church; so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England: in which this Ceremony is used, without any prescription to other Churchs.