The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 31
Sect. 31. But suppose it be no medium of Worship,Defence of the Plea, p. 41. yet it cannot out of Mr. B.'s Head, but that it must be a new Sacrament; For, saith he, If Christ had instituted the Cross as our Church doth; would you not have called this a Sacrament? And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction, it wanteth indeed a due efficient, but it is still a Human Sacrament though not a Divine, and therefore an unlawfull Sacrament. If Christ had instituted it with such promises, as he hath his other Sacraments, no doubt it had been one; but then the use of it had been quite changed, from what it is now. For then its signification had been from God to us; and the Minister had signed in Christ's Name and not in the Churches; and then it had been in token that Christ will not fail of his Promise, if we perform our Conditions. But here it is quite contrary, as hath already appeared.
There is one thing yet remaining in Mr. B. about this matter to be considered, Defence of the Plea, p. 49.viz. That according to the Rule of our Church, the Cross in Baptism hath a Sacramental efficacy attributed to it; for, saith he, As the Water of Baptism worketh morally, by signifying the washing of Christ's Body; so the Cross is to operate morally, by signifying Christ's Crucifixion, the benefits of his Cross and our Duty. And then he adds, That it is the common Doctrine of Protestants that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically, but onelyonly morally; and that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain onelyonly such moral Causality in Sacraments. And so by this means he would make the sign of the Cross to have the nature of a Sacrament with us. But that he hath misrepresented or misapplied both the Popish and Protestant Doctrine about the efficacy of Sacraments to serve his purpose, I shall now make appear,
1. Concerning the Popish Doctrine; that which overthrows the strength of all that Mr. B. saith is, that it is unanimously agreed among them as a matter of faith, that the Sacraments do confer grace, ex opere operato, where there is no actual impediment; and that it is no less than heresie to assert, that they are bare outward professing signs, i. e. Concil. Florent. Decret. Vnion. Concil. Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 6.That they are meer Ceremonies. This not one of them, whom I ever saw, either denies, or disputes; and it is expresly determin'd in the Councils of Florence and of Trent. But then they have a very nice and subtle question among them about the manner how the Sacraments do confer Grace, whether physically or morally. By physically, they mean, when a thing by its own immediate action hath influence on producing the effect; by morally, they mean that which doth effectually concurr to the producing the effect, but after another manner, as by perswasion, by intreaty, &c. As he that runs the sword into anothers bowels, kills him physically; he that perswades and incourages him effectually to doe it, is as really the cause of his death as the other; but then they say, he is but a moral and not a physical cause of the murther. They all agree, that the Sacraments do effectually convey Grace, where there is no obstacle put; but the onelyonly question is, about the manner of producing it. And as to this they agree, that the Sacraments do work as moral Causes, not principal but instrumental; the principal they say is the Merit of Christ, the Instrumental the Sacraments as deriving their efficacy from the former; as the Writing from the Seal, and the Seal from the Authority of the Person; or as Money from the Stamp, and the Stamp from the King: but besides this, they question whether there be not a proper efficiency by Divine Power in the Sacraments, to produce at least the character from whence Divine Grace immediately follows. And about this indeed they are divided. Some say, there is no necessity of asserting more than a bare moral Causality; because this is sufficient for the infallible efficacy of the Sacraments, Gamachae Sum. Theol. To. 3. qu. 2. c. 5.sublato obice, as Gamachaeus a late Professour in the Sorbon delivers their Doctrine: and of this opinion, he reckons Bonaventure, Altissidore, Scotus, Durandus, Canus, Ledesma, and many others: and with this he closes, because this is sufficient, and the other is to make Miracles without cause; as long as the effect follows certò, infallibiliter & ex opere operato, as he there speaks. And for the same reason Card. de Lugo yields to it,Lu…o de Sacram. disp. 4. Sect. 4. n 32. although he there saith, that a Sacrament is signum practicum infallibile Gratiae. So that those who do assert onelyonly this moral Causality of Sacraments, do not suppose any uncertainty in the effect, any more than the others do, but onelyonly differ about the way of producing it. Yet Ysambertus, Ysambert. de Sacram. ad. Qu. 62. disp. 4 art. 3.another late Professour of the Sorbon proves the Doctrine of a Physical efficiency to be much more agreeable to the sense of their Church; and that the argument is of no force against it, because it is so hard to be understood, for then they must quit many other Doctrines besides this. Ioh. Baptista Gonet, a late learned Thomist not onelyonly contends earnestly for this opinion, but saith, The greater part of their Divines assert it, Clypeus Theolog. Thomist. To. 5. disp. 3. art. 2. § 1.and those of greatest reputation, as Ruardus Tapper, Vega, Sayrus, Ysambertus, Suarez, Valentia, Bellarmin, Reginaldus, Moeratius, Ripalda and many more. And Conquetius, he saith, reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacrament. So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools, and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments, as it is asserted by their Divines, to the significancy of our Ceremonies.
2. As to the Protestant Doctrines, he represents that in very ambiguous terms; for, he saith, That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically, but onelyonly morally. If it be their Doctrine, that the Sacraments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all, which he seems to yield; (and if he did not, might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the most eminent Reformers abroad, as well as at home) This is sufficient to shew that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacrament among us; since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace.
And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing onelyonly invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons. There being not the least ground for it, that I can discern; and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds, and have filled them with strange fears and scruples; yea, some who have conquer'd their prejudices as to other things, have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block; which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way.
And yet after all, Christian Directory Eccles. Cases Q. 49. p. 826.Mr. B. declares, That if it be a sin, it is the Ministers, and not the Person's who offers the Child to be baptized; and another man's sinfull mode will not justifie the neglect of our duty. And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it, yet it can be no pretence for Separation.