Five disputations of church-government and worship

§. 54. 2. Yea I suspect it will prove a humane Sacrament: either fully a Sacrament, or so near a kin to Sacraments, as that man hath nothing to do to institute it. The common prayer saith, that [a Sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, given to us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof] (in ⟨p. 419⟩the Catech.) Let us try by this definition whether the Cross in Baptism as used in England, be a Sacrament.

§. 54. 2. Yea I suspect it will prove a humane Sacrament: either fully a Sacrament, or so neer a kin to Sacraments, as that man hath nothing to do to institute it. The common prayer saith, that [a Sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, given to us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof] (in ⟨p. 419⟩the Catech.) Let us try by this definition whether the Cross in Baptism as used in England, be a Sacrament.

§. 55. And 1. I may take it for granted that the want of the Name, makes it not to be no Sacrament. And 2. whereas in the definition, it is said that it is [ordained by Christ himself] that belongs to a Divine Sacrament only, and not to a humane Sacrament devised by usurpers. Otherwise you must say, that there is no such thing possible as a humane Sacrament imposed by usurpers on the Church: what if all the essentials of a Sacrament, such as are found in Baptism and the Lords supper, be invented by man, and forced on the Church, is it therefore no Sacrament? or only, no Divine Sacrament? However, let us not differ about bare names and words: It is the same thing that you call a Sacrament, when God is the ordainer: and sure it will not prove it lawful because man is the ordainer; that's it that makes it unlawful, because he wants authority, and acts as an usurper. The Papists affirm that man hath not power to make new Sacraments; no not the Pope himself. Let not us go further.