seems a thing decent and seasonable enough, that when it hath pleas'd God to receive a person into his favour, and given him the Seal of it, that the Church should give him the right hand of fellowship, solemnly declaring and testi∣fying he is receiv'd into her Communion, by giving him the Badg of our Common Religion. So that, this is plain∣ly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Person Baptiz'd is admitted to, what engagement he lies under when capable of making a visible Profession. It expresseth what hath been done in Baptism, which is indeed not a sign of Dedication but Dedication it self, (as I have already said) as also the Cross is not dedication itself, but a sign of it. Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the plural number, We Receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, &c. Whereas, in Baptism, the Mi∣nister, as the immediate agent of Christ, by whom he is Authoriz'd and Commissionated, in the singular number (as in his Name) pronounceth it, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
As to what is urg'd above, that nothing can be more imme∣diate, than in the present dedicating act, to use the sign, and ex∣press the dedicating signification; they must know, it might have been more immediate, either to have plac'd this Sign before Baptism, or to have appointed some such form of words, in applying it as the Church of Rome doth; or if it had been pretended to be of divine Institution, and necessary to make the Sacrament of Baptism compleat and perfect.
And thus, I presume, I have run through the main de∣bate betwixt us and our dissenting brethren as to this Case. Wherein, I hope, I have neither misrepresented their ob∣jections, nor let pass any material strength in them, nor in replying to them, used any one provoking or offen∣sive word. Would they but read and weigh this and the other Discourses of this kind, with the same calmness of