First, It is to be observed, That although the Jews and Ethnicks derided both the Apostles, and the rest of the Christians, for Preaching and Believing in him who was Crucified upon the Cross; yet all, both Apostles and Christians, were so far from being discouraged from their Profession by the Ignominy of the Cross, as they rather rejoiced and triumphed in it. Yea, the Holy Ghost by the Mouths of the Apostles, did honour the Name of the Cross, (being hateful among the Jews) so far, that under it he comprehended not only Christ Crucified, but the Force, Effects, and Merits of His Death and Passion, with all the Comforts, Fruits and Promises, which we receive or expect thereby.In other words, because "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).
Secondly, The Honour and Dignity of the Name of the Cross, begat a reverend Estimation even in the Apostles Times (for ought that is known to the contrary) of the sign of the Cross; which the Christians shortly after used in all their Actions, thereby making an outward Show and Profession even to the Astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour, who died for them upon the Cross. And this Sign they did not only use themselves with a kind of Glory, when they met with any Jews, but signed therewith their Children when they were Christned, to dedicate them by that Badge to his Service, whose Benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism, the Name of the Cross did represent. And this Use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one Consent and great Applause. At what time, if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly have been censured as Enemies of the Name of the Cross, and consequently of Christ’s Merits, the Sign whereof they could no better endure. This continual and general Use of the Sign of the Cross, is evident by many Testimonies of the ancient Fathers.In other words, because the church has always thereby professed "Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).
Thirdly, It must be confessed, that in process of Time, the Sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, especially after that Corruption of Popery had once possessed it. But the Abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful Use of it... Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and practised, that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with Reverence retain those Ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the Minds of sober Men; and only departed from them in those particular Points, wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient Integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first Founders. In which respect, amongst some other very ancient Ceremonies, the Sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been retained in this Church, both by the Judgment and Practice of those Reverend Fathers, and great Divines in the Days of King Edward the Sixth, of whom some constantly suffered for the Profession of the Truth: and others being exil’d in the Time of Queen Mary, did after their return, in the beginning of the Reign of our late dead Sovereign, continually defend and use the same. This Resolution and Practice of our Church, hath been allowed and approved by the Censure upon the Communion Book in King Edward the Sixth’s Days, and by the Harmony of Confessions of later Years; because indeed the Use of this Sign in Baptism was ever accompanied here with such sufficient Cautions and Exceptions against all Popish Superstition and Error, as in the like Cases are either fit or convenient.In other words, because abuse is not an argument for disuse and this is demonstrated by the fact that those who testified with their lives to Christ crucified even against "all Popish Superstition and Error" steadfastly held on to the sign of the cross.
The Canon continues by demonstrating that the sign of the cross is not essential to baptism, as witnessed in the liturgy where it is altogether purged from all superstition, but nevertheless obligatory:
Lastly, The use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, being thus purged from all Popish Superstition and Error, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary Institution of it, upon those true Rules of Doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant to the Word of God, and the Judgments of all the ancient Fathers: We hold it the part of every private Man, both Minister and other, reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by publick Authority, considering that things of themselves indifferent, do in some sort alter their Natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate; and may not be omitted at every Man’s pleasure contrary to the Law, when they be commanded, nor used when they are prohibited.It still is obligatory in the Church of England, even though liturgical revisions have gradually moved us away from the practice commended here and in the Book of Common Prayer (1662). First, the ASB allowed and indeed privileged the position before the baptism, thus rendering invalid the Canon's claim that Baptism is completed before the sign of the cross is made (in a section not cited here, see the full 1604 Canon Law here). Then CW in effect prohibits the use of the traditional form of words in their traditional place: "The possibility of signing with the cross at the prayer after the baptism is provided for; but if this is done it should be accompanied by the text provided at that point in the rite, not the text provided for the Signing with the Cross after the Decision." I wonder why.
