The Mischief of Impositions, Section 10
SECTION X. Of terms of Communion required by the Church, whether upon the ſame Reaſon that ſome of them are Impoſed, the Church may not alſo impoſe ſome Ʋſe of Images, Circumciſion, and the Paſchal Lamb?
WE hear every day eloquent Orations in praiſe of peace and Union; ſmart declamations againſt ſeparation, but we ſeldom hear of the fatal terms which obſtruct the one, or may juſtifie the other: I ſhall not tire the Reader with a tedious enumeration of the particular conditions, but ſhall content my ſelf to have named One, though I diſcontent ſome others that I have no more, and ſome will find themſelvs aggrieved that I have named that one: It is the uſe of the ſign of the Croſs in baptiſm which I intend, and have therefore ſingled out that one, becauſe it is number'd amongſt the three innocent Ceremonies, and becauſe 'tis impoſed both on the Miniſters to practice it, and the people to dedicate their Children to God by it.
(1). And here I ask what Reaſon can be aſſigned for the uſe of this ſign, as it ſignifies Chriſts croſs, and him crucified thereon, as it is the ſymbol of a perſons dedication to Chriſt and his ſervice, but what will equally juſtifie the Religious uſe of a crucifix ſet up in the Church for the ſame uſe, and purpoſes?
This ſign of the croſs is inſtituted by the Church. Firſt as a memorial of Chriſts croſs; Secondly, as a Symbol whereby a perſon is dedicated to him who died the death of the croſs. Thirdly, as a token that he ſhall not be aſhamed to confeſs the faith of Chriſt crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner againſt ſin, the world, and the Devil, to continue Chriſts faithful ſervant and ſoldier to his lives end. That theſe are the ends and uſes of that ſign, is expreſly owned, by the Canons of 1603. and the office of baptiſm in the Liturgy: Now why the image of Chriſt upon the Croſs, or a Crucifix, may not be uſed for theſe ends, upon the ſame Reaſon, nay upon ſomewhat better reaſon, we are yet to ſeek: for if a ſign may be uſed to theſe ends to make impreſſion upon our minds of thoſe ſpiritual truths, duties, and mercies, the fixed viſible Image will much better do the work then the tranſient, and ſcarce viſible ſign of a croſs made in the Air with the finger. That the Papiſts do uſe the Image of Chriſt upon the Croſs as an immediate though not ultimate object of Adoration is true; and it is as true, that the Church of England does not uſe the ſign of the Croſs, nor is it by us charg'd to uſe it for that end: but yet, as there is an inferiour uſe of the Crucifix, to be the Lay-mans hornbook to teach him to ſpell out a crucified Chriſt; and a Covenanting uſe, to initiate Converts in the profeſion of the Goſpel; and an obliging uſe to engage them to ſerve their Redeemer; ſo there can be no ſolid reaſon given why ſuch lower uſes of an Image or Crucifix may not be introduced, but what will equally militate againſt our uſe of the Croſs.
2. What Reaſon can be alledged why circumciſion may not be impoſed as a tearm of Union or Communion, to ſignify the circumciſion of the heart, as well as the ſign of the Croſs to ſignifie faithfulneſs and perſeverance in the ſervice of Chriſt? To the Jews indeed it was a badge of their duty to keep the whole law. Gal. 3.4. And ſuch uſe would now be apparently ſinful, but ſuppoſe it were enjoyned for no other end than as the ſurplice to denote purity; kneeling at the Sacrament, to ſignifie humility, the ſign of the Croſs to repreſent courage, and conſtancy, ſo this circumciſion to ſtir up our dull ſouls to conſider of the circumciſion of the heart, what greater ſuperſtition in this, then in thoſe? Eſpecially when the Apoſtle has given our fruitful invention ſuch fair hints, how apt it is to be drawn into ſignificativeneſs. 2 Rom. 29. Circumciſion is that of the heart. Nay when he openly avows, that Chriſtians are the circumciſion, 3 Phil. 3. upon which myſtick grounds the Church of Abaſſia practiſes this Ceremony to this day. It is confeſt that in the Church of the Jews, circumciſion had a typical uſe, which is now unlawful to be retained, as a denyal that Chriſts being come in the fleſh. But as we have, or pretend to have ſcraped and ſcowered away the Idolatrous and ſuperſtitious uſes of thoſe ceremonies which we borrowed from the Romiſh Church, why can we not purge away the Judaical uſe of Circumciſion too, and borrow one poor Ceremony at leaſt from that Church, as well as the other from Rome?
3. What reaſon can be given why we may not together with the Lords Supper uſe a Roaſted Lamb with bitter herbes, not to ſignifie Chriſt to come which was the typical uſe, but Chriſt already come, and ſlain, which is the Symbolical uſe; ſince the Apoſtle has given us a hint for that alſo; 1 Cor. 5.7. Chriſt our Paſſover is ſacrificed for us: The Papiſts who underſtand well how far their principles will lead them, have not ſcrupled this uſe of it, for granting them a power to impoſe outward viſible ſignes of inward and inviſible grace, mercy and duty, what ſhould hinder then from turning the Paſchal Lamb into a ſignificant Ceremony? Mounſieur Lortie in his Treatiſe of the Supper, part. 1. c. 6. b. Informs us that the Greek Church upbraided the Roman, that formerly they never uſed the Supper upon Eaſter day, without a Lamb: And he quote… a good Author for his voucher. Mr. d' Autenil. Who thus informes us. Suger reports how that Pope Innocent the 2d, being at the Abbey of Saint Dennis, upon an Eaſter day, after all things were prepared according to the order of the Roman Church, he ſacrificed the moſt Holy victim of the Paſchal Lamb, and when the Maſs was ended they then did eat that material and real Lamb. And why not? if the Church may judge what is decent, orderly, edifiying, fit to teach, and ſtir up the mind of man by ſome notable ſignification, and Impoſe what it ſo judges to be, as a tearm and condition of Communion with her, what ſhould hinder her to proceed, and bring in the Paſchal Lamb too, for, the more the Merrier; and (which ſeldome holds), the better chear alſo.