The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 30
Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawfull, Christian Directory.as a transient, arbitrary, professing sign; Ecclesiastical Cases, Q. 113.yet not as a dedicating sign, and as the common professing symbol of baptized Persons. If it be lawfull in the former sense, I cannot understand how it should be unlawfull in the latter. Yes, saith he, the instituting of the latter belongs to God onelyonly. How doth that appear? Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end. True, but not onelyonly for that end; but to be the means and instruments of conveying his Grace to men; which none but God himself can doe, and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end. And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches, for them to take upon them to make application of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own Institution; which is the onelyonly possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments; but if every significant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament, then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament, because we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ; then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament, because it is a professing sign of Reverence; then laying on the hand, and kissing the Book in swearing are new Sacraments, because they are publick symbolical Rites. But saith Mr. B. it belongeth onelyonly to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects. Yet I hope, every Nobleman or Gentleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason. And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body? But the obligation here is to the common duties of Christians. And is not every Church-member bound to perform these? That which is peculiar, is the manner of admission by the sign of the Cross; and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members, i. e. makes it necessary to none else; and to shew it to be onelyonly a solemn Rite of Admission, it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism. But saith Mr. B. Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient, we need not devise more, and accuse his Institutions of insufficiency. If it be lawfull, the Church is to judge of the expediency; and not every private person. And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ, by challenging any effect peculiar to them, is no charging them with insufficiency. Well, saith Mr. B. but it is unlawfull on another account, viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship, and so forbidden in the Second Commandment. He may as well make it unlawfull to use Words in God's Worship, for are not they Images and represent things to our minds, as well as a transient sign of the Cross? Nay, doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawfull to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God? as he instanceth in a Crucifix, or historical Image of Christ, or some holy man. If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose, what out-cries of Popery had been made against us? How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry? How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted, to shew, that they went no further and desired no more than this? Yet the transient sign of the Cross, without any respect to Worship, is condemned among us, as forbidden by the Second Commandment; and that by the same person and in the same page. But it is used as a medium in God's Worship. Is our Worship directed to it? or, do we kneel before it, as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix? Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God? No; all these are rejected by our Church. How then is it a medium in God's Worship? Why forsooth, it is not a meer circumstance but an outward act of Worship. What, as much as kneeling before a Crucifix? and yet that is lawfull according to him, supposing the mind be onelyonly excited by it. Suppose then we onelyonly use the sign of the Cross to excite mens consideration in the act of Worship; what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground? But our Church allows not so much, onelyonly taking it for a lawfull outward Ceremony, which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it; how comes it then to be a medium in God's Worship? For Mr. B. saith, in the same place, there is a twofold medium in God's Worship. 1. Medium excitans, that raises our minds to Worship God, as a Crucifix, &c. 2. Medium terminans; or as he calls it terminus, in genere causae finalis, a worshipped medium or the terminus, or the thing which we worship mediately, on pretence of representing God, and that we worship him in it ultimately. And this he takes to be the thing forbidden directly in the second Commandment, viz. to worship a Creature (with mind or body) in the Act of Divine Worship, as representing God, or as the mediate term of our Worship, by which we send it unto God, as if it were more acceptable to him. So that it is lawfull, saith he, by the sight of a Crucifix to be provoked to worship God, but it's unlawfull to offer him that Worship, by offering it to the Crucifix first, as the sign, way, or means of sending it to God. Observe here a strange piece of partiality. 1. It is allowed to be lawfull to pray before a Crucifix, as a medium excitans, as an object that stirs up in us a worshipping affection; and so all those Papists are excused from Idolatry who profess they use a Crucifix for no other end, although they perform all Acts of adoration before it; and it will become a very hard Question whether the mind in its consideration, uniting the Image with the Object may not give the same Acts of Worship to one as to the other, but in different respects. For the Image being allowed to excite the mind to consideration of the object to be worshipped, the object is considered in the mind as represented by the Image, and consequently is so worshipped; and why then may not the worship be as well directed to the Image as representing, as to the Object represented by the Image; provided, that the Act of the mind be still fixed upon the Object as represented by the Image? And thus even Latria may be performed to a Crucifix. Is not this a very fair concession to the Papists? But on the other side, 2. The sign of the Cross, even the aëreal sign, as Dr. O. calls it, must be made a medium in God's Worship, though it be utterly denied by our Church; and there be no colour for it, from his own grounds. For it is neither medium excitans, being not intended by our Church for that purpose, a Crucifix being much fitter for that purpose; and our Church calls it onelyonly a lawfull ceremony and honourable badge; much less can it be thought to be any mediate object of our Worship, there being nothing like Worship performed towards it. But if all his meaning be, that whatever is used in the time of Worship that is not a meer circumstance must be a medium of Worship, that is so weak a pretence, that I shall consider it no farther.