The Ministration of Baptism
To be used in the Church

Holy Churches aim being in all her Services to make them Reasonable, that according to S. Paul 1 Cor. 14. We may all joyn with her in her Offices, both with our spirit and understanding, she hath been careful, not only to put them into a known tongue, but also to instruct us in the nature of them; making thus her Prayer-Book a sum of Divinity. Therefore here in the beginning, she instructs out of holy Scripture concerning the necessity and efficacy of Baptism, as very briefly, so very pithily and fully. First, laying down this for a rule, That we are all born in sin, as it is Rom. 5. 18, 19. all guilty in Adams fall, (so the Catholick Church spread over the world always understood it, CON. MILEVAN. c. 2.) and therefore by our first birth have no right to heaven, into which no unclean thing shall enter, Ephes. 5. 5. Secondly, that therefore there is need of a second birth, to give us right to that, as it is S. John 3. 3. Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Thirdly, that this second or new birth is by Water and the Holy Ghost, S. John 3 5. Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. By Water and the Holy Ghost is there meant holy Baptism. For first, this is the most literal interpretation of the words (for what is Baptism but Water and the Holy Ghost?) and therefore the best: for that is certainly the sense of the Holy Ghost, who, as we all believe, was the Author of the letter of the Scriptures, and therefore of the literal sense, where that is not contrary to, but agreeable with the other Scriptures. Now this literal sense given is agreeable to other texts: as namely, to Acts 8. 38. and 10. 47. Where Water is declared to be the element of Baptism. And expresly again, Ephes. 5. 26. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water. And as this is the most literal, so is it the most Catholick interpretation of the words, and therefore also the best, by S. Peters rule, 2 S. Pet. 1. 20. Knowing this first, that no prophesie of Scripture is of private interpretation. That this is the most Catholick interpretation appears by S. August. l. I. de peccator. mer. & rem. c. 30. Tertul. de Bapt. and all the ancient interpreters upon the place, who expound it all of Baptism. And indeed if it were lawful to expound it otherwise, seeing no other Scripture contradicts this literal sense; I know not how it can be avoided, but that men may lose all their Creed, by playing so with Scripture, leaving the letter for figures. Thus are we instructed in the nature, necessity, and efficacy of holy Baptism, that it is the only ordinary means of our Regeneration or second birth, which gives us a right and title to Heaven.

Then is prescribed a Prayer, usually called the Benediction or Consecration of the Water, which is used only for reverence and decency, not for necessity, as if the Water without this were not available to Baptism: For, as the Prayer hath it, Jordan and all other waters are sanctified by Christ to the mystical washing away of sin. So that there needs no Consecration here, as in the other Sacraments there is, where the Bread and Wine must be blessed by us, saith S. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. 16. before it be the Communion of the body and blood of Christ to us. And that the Church does not think any Consecration of Water necessary, appears in her office of PRIVATE BAPTISM, where haste admitting no delays, no such Prayer or blessing is used.

D. Must be ready at the font.] When Christianity first entered the world, she did not find all utensils fitted to her hand, but was constrained to take what occasion did supply: whence it is, that as at first houses were her churches, so rivers were her fonts. No other baptisteries had she for two hundred years; this is evident from Justin Martyr and Tertullian; the first treating of persons fitted for the sacred seal, saith, ἔπειτα ἄγονται ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστὶ, “then” (that is, after we had prayed together for and with them, as in the foregoing words) “they are led by us to some place where there is water.” Now lest it should be conceived that this expression may admit of a font within the church, (as we use to carry children according to the rites of our Church,) in the pursuit of this narrative he goes on thus: ἡμεῖς δὲ, μετὰ TO οὕτως λοῦσαι τὸν πεπεισμένον ἐπὶ τοὺς λεγομένους ἀδελφοὺς ἄγομεν ἔνθα συνηγμένοι εἰσὶ, κοινὰς εὐχὰς ποιησόμενοι: “then we, after the believer is thus washed, return with him to the place where the brethren are assembled for common prayer.” The second, aguam adituri ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius in ecclesia, sub antistitis manu contestamur nos renunciare diabolo, &c.; ‘'being ready to step into the water, there also, as we had done a little before in the church, the priest holding us up by the head, we make abrenunciation of the devil,” &c.

Clear proofs that the places where they baptized were distant from the churches. Probably their practice was counter to ours, for as we bring water to our churches, so in all likelihood they carried their churches to the water, that is, they had their places of religious assemblies near unto yivers, (not unlike the Proseucha mentioned Acts xvi. 13,) for the better accommodation of this Sacrament. After the second century baptisteries were erected, but not contiguous or annexed to churches, but a little separated from them; and not every where neither, but only nigh unto cathedrals, called therefore ecclesie baptismales, “baptismal churches;” not long after, they were brought into the churches, and then disposed near the door, at the lower end, denoting thereby that persons baptized did in that Sacrament make their first ingress into Christianity, who were therefore situated, by Nazianzen’s description, ἐν προθύροις τῆς εὐσεβείας, “in the entry to godliness.” But now it seems these baptisteries are turned out of doors, and more than so, a note of abomination affixed to the places where they stood. For baptism is to be administered “not in the places where fonts stoode,” and this by the direction of those very men, who yet after ingenuously confess, “no place is subject to such pollution by any superstition formerly used, and now laid aside, as may render it unlawful or inconvenient for Christians to meet together therein, for the public worship.” What can hinder the Directory from being herein felo de se, unless it be interpreted to speak in the first place of what is to be done in order to its directions, not of what is to be done of absolute necessity, flowing from the nature of the thing; and if they so intended, it had been a kindness had those learned divines been more explicit therein.

Then follows a Prayer for Gods merciful acceptance of the Infant that is brought; that, as he is to receive the Sacrament, so he may receive all the benefits of it, And lest any should doubt whether CHRIST will accept an Infant to Baptism, and the Effects of it, holy Church propounds to us the 10. chap. of S. Mark, out of which she concludes CHRISTS love and good will to children in general; For he commanded them to be brought to him; he rebuked those that would have kept them from him, he embraced them in his arms, and blessed them: which are all plain arguments that he will receive them when they are brought to him: Yea, and that he will so far embrace them as to receive them to eternal life, if they be brought to him, is plain by his own words in that Gospel; Suffer little children to come unto me, for to such, and therefore to themselves (for Quod in uno similium valet, valebit in altero, what belongs to others because they are such as children are, must needs belong to the children) belongeth the kingdom of God. Since then they be capable of the Kingdom of heaven, and there is no ordinary way for them to the Kingdom of heaven, but by a new and second birth of Water and the Holy Ghost, that is, Baptism; Doubt ye not, but that He who exprest so much love to them as is mentioned in the Gospel, will favourably receive the present infant to baptism, and gratiously accept our charitable work in bringing it to him. Thus holy Church concludes out of Scripture according to the practice and doctrine of the Catholick Church.

CYPRIAN tells us that no Infant is to be hindred from baptism. Ep. 59. This was the sentence of that Council: Anno Dom. 246. and this was no new decree, but fides Ecclesiae firmissima, the most established faith of the Church, AVG. ep. 28. ad Hieron. Haec sententia olim in Ecclesia Catholica summa authoritate fundata est. This definition was long before S. Cyprian settled in the Catholick Church by the highest Authority. AVG. de verb. Apost. Ser. 14. Let no man whisper to you any strange doctrines. This the Church always had, always held, this she received from our forefathers, and this she holds constantly to the end. And, Quicunque parvulos recentes, ab uteris matrum, baptizandos negat, Anathema sit, saith the COVNG. of Milevis, c. 2. being the CXth in the African Code. That Council pronounced Anathema to any that shall deny the baptism of Infants. And that Counc. is confirmed by the fourth and sixth GENERAL COUNCILS.

Then shall the Priest demand of the Godfathers, &c. These questions, Dost thou forsake, &c. This Form of interrogating the Godfathers in the name of the child, is very Ancient and Reasonable.

For the Antiquity of it, see S. Chrys. in Psal. 14. Adducit quisquam infantem ubera sugentem, ut baptizetur, & statim sacerdos exigit ab infirma aetate, pacta, conventa, assensiones, & minoris aetate fide jussorem accipit susceptorem, & interrogat an renunciat Satanae. The sucking Infant is brought to baptism. The Priest exacts of that Infant covenants, contracts and agreements: and accepting of the Godfather in the Infants stead, he asks, whether he does forsake the Devil, &c.] Cyprian ep. 7.

H. The moving of these following interrogatories to infants, seemed over light for a Sacrament of so high importance; and I confess, at the first glance, and perfunctory view, it exhibits much in favour of that misapprehension. But go nearer and behold it with a stricter scrutiny, the practice will appear not only defensible enough, but decently accommodated to the sacred office of peedo-baptism.

This Sacrament, all men know and grant, is the initiation, the first admission into the gospel-covenant; a covenant must be bipartite, there must be at least two parties to it, Christ here for His part promiseth to persons baptized, remission of sins, Acts il. 38, (as also in that great charter of “ask and ye shall have,”’) and all other things advancing their eternal salvation. And that this prove not nudum pactum, “a naked contract,” without guid pro guo, reason good he should covenant with persons to be baptized, “that they forsake the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God’s holy word, and obediently keep His commandments.” Now because tender babes are in no capacity to stipulate for themselves, therefore the Church, who is the common mother to all such as profess Christianity, assigneth to those infants, and to all persons naturally so impedited, sponsores, i. e. “ godfathers” or guardians to undertake and assume for them what they ought to do for themselves, were it consistent with their, rather days than, years. For the presentment of children at the font, is most properly the act of the Church, and but ministerially the act of the sponsores. Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes, ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur, saith St. Augustine; i. 6. “the Church furnisheth them with others’ feet to come, with the heart of others to believe, and with the tongue of others to confess their faith.” And it is an act of her charity indulged unto the infants of all such as have consigned up their names to Christianity, without regard to the either, perhaps blameworthy conversation, or misbelief in points of religion of the parents, much less to spurious generation.

Nor this a practice rare and unheard of, but hath its parallel amongst almost all nations in civil transactions, they indulging the like favour not only to infants, but also to all that labour of the like incapacity: Valerius Flaccus quem edilem creaverant, quia Flamen Dialis erat, jurare in leges non poterat, magistratum autem plus quinque dies, nisi qui jurasset in leges, non licebat gerere, ideo petiit ut legibus solveretur: quare dutus alter, viz., Frater ejus, qui pro eo juraret, plebesque scivit, ut perinde esset, ac si ipse edilis jurasset, i.e. “ Valerius being before Flamen Dialis, or Jupiter’s high-priest, soon after was created aedile,” (or overseer of dilapidations;) ‘‘as he was high-priest he ought not to swear,” (the law of the Romans supposing such a sacred person would voluntarily do what an oath would compel, much like the value our nation hath for her nobility upon that very account, not demanding corporal oath from such persons of honour,) “and no man could hold any office of magistracy above five days, unless he first took oath to observe the laws: whereupon, he moved the law might be dispensed with; wherefore another was assigned for his proxy, and his brother sworn in his stead, the people decreeing that it should be as firm in law as if the edile himself had taken the oath.” So the civil law confirmeth all stipulations of the guardians or tutors of pupils, which are made for the benefit of the minor, and so doth the common law of this land. Authoritas custodum est, ut contrahant, in judicio stent, reliquaque faciant pro pupillo suo, que rerum statusque sui vel conservationem, vel incrementum spectant, i.e. “ guardians have full authority to contract, to bring an action, and to act any thing in their pupil’s behalf, which may tend to the preservation of his estate, or advantage of his affairs.” Yea, custos in animam minoris jurare potest, i.e. “the guardian may swear for his minor,” saith the same author: and I myself am not ignorant, that in court-rolls, entries are to be, found of several persons, who have been sworn for minors and infants, who, in respect of tenure, were obliged in course to bear offices relating to their lord paramount.

Then follow certain short prayers. O merciful God, &c. which I conceive to be the same in substance with the ancient Exorcismes, which were certain prayers taken out of holy Scripture, Cyril. Cat. 1. and compos'd by the Church, CONC. CARTH. 4. c. 7. for the dispossessing of the person to be baptized; who being born in sin is under the Devils tyranny, from which the Church by her prayers, endeavours to free him. And so available they were, that oftentimes those that were corporally possessed, were freed by them, Cyp. ep. 77. and thereupon Cyril, Nazianz. Gennadius, and others, earnestly perswade not to despise the Churches Exorcisms. That it was ancient to use these Exorcisms before baptism, Nazianz. in lavacrum, S. Cypr. ep. 77. and Gennadius witness, who sayes, that it was observed Uniformiter in universo mundo, uniformly throughout the World.

Next follows the Commemoration of Christs institution of Baptism; and his Commission to his Disciples to Baptize. Thus the Priest reads his Commission, and then acts accordingly: and because no man is sufficient for these things, 2 Cor. 2. 16. therefore he prayes for Gods assistance and acceptance of his ministration.

Then the Priest asks the childs name. As under the Law at Circumcision the name was given, so now at Baptism, because then we renounce our former Lord and Tyrant, and give up our names to God as his servants.

Then the Minister Baptizes the child dipping or sprinkling it, &c. either of which is sufficient Gennad. dog. 74. For it is not in this spiritual washing, as it is in the bodily, where if the bath be not large enough to receive the whole body, some part may be foul when the rest are cleansed. The soul is cleansed after another manner, Totum credentibus conferunt divina compendia, a little water can cleanse the believer, as well a whole River, CYPR. ep. 77.

The old fashion was to dip or sprinkle the person thrice, to signifie the mystery of the TRINITY, and the Apost. can. 50. deposes him that does otherwise. The Church so appointed then because of some Hereticks that denied the Trinity: upon the same ground afterwards it was appointed to do it but once (signifying the unity of substance in the Trinity) left we should seem to agree with the Hereticks that did it thrice. Toletan. 4. c. 5.

This baptizing is to be at the FONT. What the Font is, every body knows, but not why it is so call'd. The rites of baptism in the first times were perform'd in Fountains and Rivers, both because their converts were many, and because those ages were unprovided of other Baptisteries: we have no other remainder of this rite but the name. For hence it is that we call our Baptisteries, Fonts; which when Religion found peace, were built and consecrated for the more reverence and respect of the Sacrament. These were set at first some distance from the Church, Cyril cat. myst. 1. after, in the Church-Porch, and that significantly, because Baptism is the entrance into the Church mystical, as the Porch to the Temple. At the last, they got into the Church, but not into every, but the City-Church, where the Bishop resided, hence call'd the Mother Church, because it gave spiritual birth by baptism; afterward they were brought into Rural Churches. Wheresoever they stood, they were had in high veneration. Anastas. ep. ad Orthodox. complains sadly of impiety in his time; such as never was heard of in war, that men should set fire to Churches and Fonts, and after mentioning the Fonts. Good God! Christ-killing Jews, and heathenish Atheists, have without all reverence entred and defiled the Fonts.

K. Naming the child.] The imposition of the name in baptism, is both a decent imitation of the same practice in circumcision, whereof there are, besides those of our Saviour and St. John Baptist, several other instances, and a prudent parcel of religious policy, whereby the person baptized might be the better distinguished, in albo Christianorum, “in the Christian register;”and for this cause the priests were anciently commanded, ἀπογράψασθαι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ Tov ἀνάδοχον, “to enrol the names both of the person baptized, and of his godfather or surety.” Indeed, fit it was, that they who gave themselves up to Christ, and listed themselves in His militia, should be enrolled upon their first admission, that the Church might the better know who were hers. Now whereas proselytes adult were entered into the register under their former names, unless they thought fit to assume others, when they were in composition for baptism: so infants, upon whom no names were formerly imposed, were, as before they were brought to the sacred font, named by their parents, or such as represented them, viz. the godfathers.

L. Shall dip. Immersion or dipping is not of the necessity of this Sacrament, sprinkling being every way as energetical and operative, as St. Cyprian hath (for it is one of the questions he undertakes to resolve) most excellently determined. Non sic in sacramento salutari delictorum contagia, ut in lavacro carnali sordes corporis abluuntur: “the filth and pollution of our sins is not so cleansed in the sacramental laver, as our bodies are in natural water.’' And though dipping was the more ancient custom, in respect of persons adult, who were better able to undergo it; yet after, when whole nations became Christian, and rarely any were offered to the font but infants, whose tender bodies would not well endure it, this custom, in the western Church especially, was discontinued, and aspersion only used; so that Erasmus noted it as a piece of singularity in us English, that in his time we used immersion, And though dipping was constantly practised in the eastern countries, and is so still at this day, yet for children the use was then, and so is now, to warm the water μετὰ φύλλων τινῶν εὐωδῶν, “with sweet herbs,” a trouble avoided by aspersion.

Again, sprinkling is much more to the advantage of modesty, as to women especially, or where many are baptized together, as the then fashion was. For even when baptisteries were erected, they were made susceptible and capable to receive more than one: μὴ ἀπαξιώσῃς συμβαπτισθῆναι πένητι πλούσιος ὦν ὁ εὐπατρίδης τῷ δυσγενεῖ, ὁ δεσπότης τῷ δούλῳ, saith Gregory Nazianzen, i.e. “do not disdain, if thou beest rich, to be baptized in the same font with the poor; if nobly born, with the obscure; if a master, with thy servant.” Nor could the company and presence of others create any inconvenience, had they not entered the font stripped of all, and totally naked, as it is clear they did. In fontem nudi demergitis, sed etherea veste vestiti: “ye dive into the font naked, only invested with an airy mantle.” An usage not peculiar to men, but practised also by women, as is evident by St. Chrysostom, who, speaking of an outrage acted by rude people in the time of persecution, maketh amongst other things this relation; καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν εὐκτηρίων οἴκων πρὸς τὸ βάπτισμα ἀποδυσάμεναι γυμναὶ ἔφυγον, i.e. “the women of the sacred oratories having put off their clothes in order to baptism, ran away naked.” True it is, these women were not baptized promiscuously with men: for the baptistery was parted in the middle with a screen or traverse of wood, one division being allotted for the men, and the other for the women, which were so close joined, that neither could make any discoveries into the other; that they were thus separated, Augustine gives us cause to believe, who related a miracle of Innocentia, that was cured of a cancer in her breast, by being signed there with the cross, by the new-baptized woman, who first came to her as she stood in parte feminarum ad baptisterium, “in the division assigned for the baptizing of women.” And these divisions probably the fathers had an eye to, when they mention baptisteries in the plural number, (as Ambrose in his epistle to Marcellina,) not intending several structures, but several divisions in one structure. But though this traverse blinded them from the view of men who came upon the same account they did, it did not hide them from the sight of the baptist, who was regularly to be a man: and therefore that all possible provision for modesty might be made, certain women were set apart for that service, their office being ἐξυπηρετεῖσθαι τοῖς διακόνοις ἐν τῷ βαπτίζεσθαι τὰς γυναίκας διὰ τὸ εὐπρεπὲς, “to assist the deacons in baptizing women more decently,” as the author of the Constitutions hath it: the like is repeated also by Epiphanius, who hath transcribed much from him; διακονίσσαι καθίστανται eis ὑπηρεσίαν γυναΐκων διὰ τὴν σεμνότητα, ἀν χρεία κατασταίη λουτροῦ ἕνεκα: i.e. “ deaconesses are appointed for the ministration of women, for modesty sake, in case there be any occasion to baptize them.” I have dwelt the longer upon this subject, not only to discover the manifold inconveniences of immersion and dipping, in persons adult, but also to represent the various customs of the primitive times, perhaps not known to all.

Μ. Thrice.] What the Apostolical mode was, whether single or triple mersion, there is no direct constat: the Church devτεροπρώτη, and next to it, for certain practised it thrice, and applied the same quotient to confirmation, and the confession to their faith. In mysteriis interrogatio trina defertur, et confirmatio trina celebratur; nec potest quis nisi trina confessione purgari, saith Ambrose, i.e. “in the mystery of initiation or baptism, three interrogatories are put, thrice is the party confirmed, so that no man can be cleansed in that laver, but by a threefold confession.” And for the manner, more explicitly in another place; Interrogatus es, Credis in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem ὃ dixisti, Credo, et mersisti. Iterum interrogatus es, Credis in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et in crucem ejus ? dixisti, Credo, et mersisti. Tertio interrogatus es, Credis οἱ in Spiritum Sanctum ὃ dixisti, Credo, tertio mersisti: “Thou art asked, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? thou answerest, I believe, and thou wert dipped. Again, thou wert demanded, Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His cross? thou answerest, I believe, and then thou wert dipped again. Thirdly, thou wert asked, Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? thou answerest, I believe, and then thou wert dipped the last time.” This ceremony of interrogating thrice, St. Ambrose, in this place, and Cyril on John, deriving from our Saviour’s thrice demanding of St. Peter if he loved Him, John xxi. But I rather think it was so ordered as a distinct denotation of the personal Trinity, as single mersion or aspersion answereth the unity of the Deity, and upon that account was enjoined by the fourth council of Toledo, in opposition to the Arian heretics. The truth is, neither practice can justly be condemned, and are which she will, and judgeth best accommodated to the temper of her members. As for ours, a late bishop of no mean note, in his Articles of Visitation, positively asserts that the child is thrice to be aspersed with water on the face. An error, certainly, and to prove it so, this very rubric of the first book of Edward the Sixth is argumentative enough: for this rubric enjoining triple sprinkling, and being clearly omitted and outed by the second reformers, infallibly argueth they intended the discontinuance of the former practice. And the sense of those reformers must be the rule of our obedience.

After the Priest hath baptized the child, he receives it into the congregation, by this solemnity declaring that he is by baptism made a member of the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. We are all baptized into one body. And when he thus receives it, he signs it with the sign of the Cross, as of old it was wont, AVG. in Psal. 30. and on the forehead, the seat of blushing and shame, that he may not hereafter blush and be ashamed of the disgraced cross of Christ, Cypr. ep. 56. By this badge, is the childe dedicated to his service, whose benefits bestowed upon him in baptism, the name of the cross in holy Scripture does represent. Whosoever desires to be fully satisfied concerning the use of the cross in baptism, let him read the 30. Can. of our Church, Anno 1603.

P. Shall make a cross.] This rubric must be expounded by the thirtieth canon of our Church, and by that which followeth; for the signing is not immediately to succeed the formal words of baptism. But the minister is first to say, “we receive this child into the congregation of Christ’s flock;” and then to sign, and so the words ‘do sign,’ in the present tense, do infallibly import. For the Church, studious to retain this ancient and universal ceremony of the purest primitive times, was also careful to decline all fear of superstitious intendment, as if she thought the Sacrament imperfect without it. Therefore, whereas the primitive mode made it to usher in baptism, our Church inverted the order, and made it come after, and so to follow it, as she expressly first declareth “the child to be received into the congregation of Christ’s flock, as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the cross.” And further to assure all distrustful minds, that she maketh it not of the substance of the Sacrament, she hath totally omitted it in the office of Private Baptism. Having yielded a reason of this remove in the service of our Church, it will be proper and pertinent to enquire into the original inducement to this ceremony.

These I observe to be three: first, an ancient rite it was for servants or captives to be stigmatized or branded with the names of their masters on their foreheads, as it was for their soldiers enrolled, with the names of their emperors or generalissimos on the hands, declaring thereby to whom they did belong. To this custom the prophet Ezekiel is thought to allude, ch. ix. ver. 4: “set a mark upon the forehead of them that mourn, and cry for all the abominations that are done in the midst of Jerusalem.” To this custom the angel in the Revelation is thought to regard, ch. vii. ver. 3: “hurt ye not the earth, &c., until we have sealed the servants of God on the forehead;” and ch. xiv. ver. 1, where the retinue of the Lamb are said to “have His Father’s name written on their foreheads.” And as Christ’s flock carried their cognizance on their foreheads, so did His great adversary, the beast, sign his servants there also; Rev. xiv. 9, “if any man shall receive the mark of the beast on his forehead or on his hand.” Now that the Christian Church might hold some analogy with those sacred applications, she conceived it a most significant ceremony for baptism, (it being our first admission into Christian profession,) that all her children should be signed with the cross on their foreheads, at their reception of it, signifying thereby their consignment up to Christ, whence it is so often called by the fathers, signaculum Dominicum, “the Lord’s signet,” σφραγίς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “Christ’s broad seal,’ or by words of the same import: and hence Tertullian, signat illic in fronte milites suos; “he marketh in the forehead his own soldiers.”

Secondly, the real miracles which were in those times daily wrought by the use thereof, both in expelling and driving out of the devil, and by healing of corporal diseases, whereof I lately produced one testimony out of St. Augustine, who from that very place can furnish you with many more: so that woman in Epiphanius was preserved from poison, διὰ τῆς σφραγῖδος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ πίστεως ἐβοηθήθη: “she was helped by the sign of the cross and faith in Christ.” Not by either separated, but by both together. Many other instances might be produced. Now, in case any shall object that many of those anciently recorded miracles were impostures and mere fables; were it possible to be proved, it would be of no force, unless they could also prove all were so, which is a thing impossible, considering that so many of the primitive fathers witness the contrary; nor is there any Protestant of remark who doth not acknowledge as much. Confessed it is, this gift of working miracles lasted not many centuries after Christ; and that for two reasons, one, lest the familiarity of them should breed contempt: for τὰ ὀντὰ θαυμάσια καταπεφρόνηται TS συνήθει, saith elegant Philo, “real miracles lose their estimation when they grow common.” Again, the work was done for which they were wrought: ὅτε ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ Θεοῦ οὔπω ἐκτείνατο, τὰ σημεῖα ἐγίνετο: “when the knowledge of the Christian faith was not far diffused, miracles were wrought as necessary,” for the conversion of proselytes; but when the gospel began to be spread abroad, νυνὶ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι χρεία ταύτης τῆς διδασκαλίας, “there was no further need of that way of teaching.” Therefore St. Paul saith, τὰ σημεῖα τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ov τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, “wonders were exhibited more for the unbelievers than for the faithful,’' which is the cause that Timothy and Epaphroditus being sick, 1 Tim. v. 23, Phil. ii. 30, no miracle was applied to recover them, they being faithful and confirmed believers.

Lastly, the heathens were wont to deride the Christians, and to speak disdainfully of them, as worshippers of a malefactor crucified: to encounter which reproach, and to shew that they “gloried in the cross of Christ,” Gal. vi. 14, taking it to be an honour, not an ignominy, they assumed this ceremony of signing themselves with the cross, both in baptism, and at several other times. Cor quidem habemus, non tamen tale quale vos habetis, nec nos pudet crucifixi, sed in parte ubi pudoris signum est, signum ejus crucis habemus': “we have a heart,” saith Augustine to the pagans, “but of a better mould than yours, nor are we at all ashamed of Christ crucified, but bear His cognizance in our foreheads, the seat of shamefacedness.”

Now as to the establishment of this ceremony by our Church, though we have slender expectation that it should operate as formerly, yet why may it not be retained as an honourable memorial of its miraculous effects of old. But the Church is so exceedingly express and perspicuous in her explanation of the use thereof, as nothing can be desired more; which explication being the product of the conference at Hampton Court, was so abundantly satisfactory to the foreman of those opponents, Dr. Reynolds, as, having once perused it, he ingenuously professed “he would never gainsay that ceremony any more.” In that explication not a syllable appears of any operation ascribed to this sign, therefore they who have adhered to any such opinion, cannot plead the Church of England for their guide. Eminent and most remarkable was the great prudence of King James in this concernment. All along King Edward the Sixth’s and Queen Elizabeth’s reign, when the strumosi, such as had the king’s evil, came to be touched, the manner was then for her to apply the sign of the cross to the tumour; which raising cause of jealousies, as if some mysterious operation were imputed to it, that wise and learned king not only (with his son, the late king) practically discontinued it, but ordered it to be expunged out of the prayers relating to that cure: which hath proceeded as effectually, that omission notwithstanding, as it did before. The sign of the cross being then significant only, and not operative, and significant of a duty to be elicited by future practice, good reason hath our Church to continue it, in which sense, non est reprobanda, with Zanchy, “it is not to be disallowed;” adhibere nec indecens, nec inutile esse existimo, saith Bucer, “in my opinion, the use of it is neither unseemly nor unprofitable.”

After thanksgiving for Gods gracious admitting the child to baptism, and a most divine Prayer, that he may lead his life according to that beginning[.]

This Office ends with a grave and pious exhortation to the Godfathers, to remember their duty towards the Infants; the like to which you may read, S. Aug. de Temp. Ser. 116.