in like sort the decent and orderly ceremonies of the Church though abused in one place yet in an other be restored vnto their right vse especially the abuse which is offered in ceremonies being but only secunda idolatria as Tertullian noteth but a second and inferiour degree of idolatry whereas that which is offered in the creatures is often-times the principall they beeing honored for very Gods Where finde you Gods creatures in this case of idolatry to haue any greater priuiledge then the Churches ceremonies If they after they haue beene made idols in the highest degree may yet haue their vse in the seruice of God why may not the other too which can be made idols but in an inferiour degree If the idolatrie with creatures do not destroy the vse of the same indiuidua why should the idolatry of ceremonies which is a lesse abuse destroy the vse of all the whole species the translators of our Geneua Bible in setting out the picture of the golden Calfe insinuate these two things First that the abuse offered to one idol of that kind though it were idolatry in the highest degree yet hath not so corrupted the whole species of it but that other may both lawfully and profitably bee vsed Secondly that though that idols were but a mans inuention had bin so notably abused vnto idolatry yet that it is not debarred from helping vs euen in the seruice of God for that must needs be the end of their figuring it in that booke Beza as you heard before goeth further for hee alloweth the very same alter which hath beene the instrument of an idolatrous sacrifice to be vsed as an instrument of our christian Sacrament In which iudgement diuers martyrs in Queene Maries time concurred who were content to vse the same Surplices and Chalices which had beene abused in adolatrous masses The like did the christians in the primitiue church they conuerted the same temples into the houses of God which had beene consecrated to the seruice of abhominable idols yet are both idolatrous Temples and Alters mans owne meere inuentions and not Gods eyther creatures or ordinances So that though our crosse were the same which was abused and but a mans inuention yet might it by these examples be defended But secondly I answere vnto your consequent That if it were granted that the signe of the crosse were but a mans inuention yet can it not bee granted with any truth that the protestants crosse is the same which the Papists haue abused ours differing from theirs both in the Agents and in the ends of the action two very great and materiall differences Thirdly I demand how those men which condemne all humaine inuentions which haue idolatrously beene abused do agâ—ee with them selues when they condemne kneeling and commend sitting at the holy communion making this to bee a significant signe of our eternall rest which is both meerely an humaine inuention and hath notably beene abused vnto idolatry Ob. Perhaps you will say that sitting is agreeable to Christs owne institution and that he himselfe sat at his last Supper Resp. But that is not so hee vsed an other site of his body as distant from sitting as kneeling is He leaned and so did the rest of his Disciples according to the custome and fashion of those times Looke Clauis Scripturae in voce sinus Stuckius de ritibus conuiuialibus lib. 2. cap. 34. Ob. But happily you thinke that sitting hath not beene so wickedly abused vnto idolatry as kneeling hath Resp. Nay much more and to more horrible idolatry too For in the kingdomes of Calecute and Narsiâ—ga and in diuerse other prouinces of the East and West India where they worship the diuill in a most deformed image they represent him alwayes sitting and they worship him not kneeling but prostrate So that they which reiect kneeling and retaine sitting whilest they auoide the iesture of Christian idolaters they imâ—tate the iesture of Heathen idols Therefore where sitting is allowed I know not why either kneeling or crossing should be abolished Then to recapitulate the summe of this long answer If neitâ—er wee our selues nor the papits our aduersaâ—ies doe thinke our crosse auaileable to the driuing away of diuils nor to the sanctifying of our selues nor yet do adore it with diuine or holy worship then is not our crosse made an idoll either by our owne practise or by their opinion and therefore not to be debarred from the seruice of God by force of your first argument Againe if our crosse be either no humaine inuention but rather an Apostolicall tradition or being an humaine inuention yet hath neuer beene abused vnto idolatry then is it not excluded from the seruice of God by vertue of your second argument But the first of these is true as I haue shewed in the body of this answere Ergo the second also The fift obiection For as much as our profession of Christ is a part of the couenant Rom. 10.8.9 I haue doubted how man may appoint the signe of the crosse as a token of our profession This being Gods owne prerogatiue as to ordaine the couenant so to ordaine meete signes for it Gen. 17.7.11 Answer This fift obiection is very intricate but I gesse that â—t may be explicated thus No man may adde signes to the couenant of God Gen. 17.7.11 But our profession of Christ is the couenant of God Rom. 10.8.9 Ergo no man may adde signes to our profession of Christ. And by consequent the signe of the crosse may not bee added to our profession in baptisme In which argument the Maior must be answered by distinction That the outward signes of our profession or couenant with God bee of two diuers natures for either they bee sacramentall or ceremoniall signes For sacramentall signes wee plainely confesse that they must needs bee of Gods owne institution and haue his owne promise annexed vnto them and therefore no man hath any power to ordaine them but this as you truly say is Gods sole prerogatiue But â—or rituall and ceremoniall signes made either for the ordering of the Church within it selfe or for the distinguishing of it from other assemblies the case is farre otherwise such thinges may bee made by the Churches constitution without any incroching vppon Gods prerogatiue by the iudgement of the most Diuines both old and new I reffere you for breuities sake vnto the ninety fiue page of Bishoppe Whitgifts booke continuing vnto page 128. In which long and learned discourse hee citeth many testimonies of the ancient fathers declaring many rites ceremonies to haue beene ordained in the primitiue Church by hir owne authority without any expresse warrant of the word for them sauing onely that generall warrantize of Saint Paule Omnia decenter et ordine fiant In which rule he naming not the seuerall particulars but leauing them to the Churches discretion he giueth it power to ordaine lawes and ceremonies so that these conditioÌ„s be not transgressed
side which led you vnto disobedience then vnto the other which led you vnto dutiful and Christian obedience That way which you went you had nothing to carry you but only the blast of a windy opinioÌ„ yea not that neither for your opinioÌ„ was not setled that other way which you left you had two great waightes so sway you viz. the authority of the law both spirituall and temporall and the practise of the Church both ancient and moderne a very heauy counterpoise therefore I wonder how you could set them so light especially you hauing no such waighty authority to vncertain you as the Churches exaÌ„ple might haue bin to resolue you which eueÌ„ in this particular case of the crosse hath both traditioneÌ„ auctricem and consuetudinem confirmatricem therefore oughâ— to haue fidem obseruatricem as Tertullian in the fore-cited booke obserueth So that surely you strained at a gnat swallowed vp a Camell when you were so superstitious in not offending against your own priuate opinion and so little religious in offending against the Churches publike direction Ob. But perhaps you will say that you will not be led by the examples of men nor pin your conscience vpon other mens sleeues Resp. I answere first for the examples of men that though they be not alwaies to be generally followed without all exception nor rashly without due examination yet in scruple of conscience when wee lack the direction of the word of God I do not thinke that the breach of law contempt of the churches example is the safest way to keepe a good conscience S. Augustine had so high an estimation of the Churches example that in the maine foundation of all religion that which led him especially vnto a resolution was the example authority of the Church Ego vero saith he Euangelio non crederem nisi me caetholicae ecclesiae coÌ„moueret authoritas This great opinion had he of the Churches example that in a matter of greatest waight it preuailed more with him to gaine his assent then any other reason or argumeÌ„t could do And therfore in such intricate and doubtfull suspension hee giueth vs this good rule for our direction Quae vera perspexeris tene quae falsa respue quae dubia crede donec aut respuenda esse aut seÌ„per credenâ—a vel ratio doceat vel authoritas pracipiat A very sound rule fit to be obserued in euery Church by al the particular meÌ„bers of it wherin he prescribeth no more vnto vs theÌ„ he had subscribed vnto himself as euidently appeareth out of the former place whose iudgment practice concurring both togiâ—her ought not be so lightly estemed of vs especially we hauing in this case of the crosse beside his authority the example of the Church both rationem docentem and authoritatem praecipientem either of which in his iudgment were sufficient argumeÌ„ts to lead vs to obedience Ob. But you say you will not pin your conscience vpon other mens sleeues Resp. I answer that in matters of faith where you may haue the light of the holy Scripture for your full instruction it is not simply good to pinne your conscience vpon the sleeues of men though how farre Saint Augustine did yeeld euen in this case I haue before declared But in matters of order and obedience such as the obseruation of the crosse is the scriptures themselues do pinne your conscience vnto other mens sleeues For in things in different commanded for orders sake where the authority of the Magistrate goeth before there the conscience of the subiect ought to lead him after as if it were pinned vnto the Magistrates sleeue by the concurring iudgements of the two chiefe Apostles Peter and Paul of whom the one commandeth vs to submit our selues to all ordinances of men for the Lords sake the other to obey them euen for conscience sake Therefore to shut vp this first obiection I conclude with Plato Si positioni non credis reprobare debes Si reprobare non potes positioni credes Either prooue you that the crosse is a thing against conscience or else yeeld obedience vnto it for conscience sake The second obiection Whereas order and comlinesse are the grounds of such things as the Church may adde I haue doubted that this signe exceedeth both these because there is giuen it a spirituall signification of our valour in confessing Christ boldly Answer The signe of the crosse as we now vse it is neither against comlinesse nor against good order but very consonant vnto both euen by Caluines owne description of comlinesse and order and therefore by your owne rule grounded vpon Saint Paul may lawfully be added and vsed by our church Now if besides these two forenamed commodities it haue also a third to wit a spirituall signification yea and that such a one as hath not onely beene allowed but also affected in the primitiue church this ought not to debarre the vse of it amongst vs but rather to inferre that it ought to be in vse For the very same Apostle which prescribeth the two former rules of order and comlinesse in the very same chapter prescribeth a third of greater importance then they both to wit that they tend vnto edification And except our ceremonies be thus conditioned they ought not in any Christian church to be vsed as Caluine himselfe noteth Totum obseruationum vsum finem ad ecclesiae aedificationem referamus saith he referring not onely their intended end but also their dayly vse vnto the edification of the church Ob. But you say that to haue a spirituall signification is to exceede the nature of a ceremonie and to draw it vnto a higher quality Perhaps you meane vnto the nature of a sacrament For that is T. C. conceipt from whom I gesse you borrowed it Resp. But therein you greatly mistake the matter For not onely Sacraments but also ceremonies too ought to haue their spirituall signification of which if they be destitute they vtterly degenerate into vaine and idle gesticulations neither is there any reason why such should haue any place in the Church The Apostle saith of ceremonies that they be shaddowes of things to come of good things and of heauenly things Saint Hierom saith that they be not onely shaddowes but also eminencies too hee calleth them imagines and exemplaria futurorum which ought no lesse to bee obserued in our Christian ceremonies then it was in the Iewish For as Saint Augustine obserueth Whosoeuer obserueth any ceremonie or signe and not vnderstandeth what thing it doth signifie hee doth seruire sub signo hee is a slaue a seruant vnto the outward signe but he that obserueth it knowing the signification of it he serueth not the signe but the thing wherevnto it is referred Yea and Caluin allowing ceremonies in all christian Churches requireth these three conditions in them that they haue In numero paucitatem In
eam semper inimicitiae per sequantur This is the state yea and the fate of the truth that it alwayes shal be persecuted by the tongues of his enemies And this contradiction against it is one speciall note to know it And therefore the speaking against the truth though with neuer such confidence and vndertaking yet ought not either to scandalize or discourage any man which truely and sincerely seeketh after the truth Because if you examine the reasons of such contradictors as euery wise Christian ought to doe you shall find them Most deceitfull vpon the waightes yea and altogether lighter then vanity it selfe As notably appeared in that renowned Conference which was held for the reducing of our resisters of the truth wherin all the great chalenges of their greatest vndertakers were found to be iust nothing but swolne and windy bladders Builatae nugae as the Poet speaketh This briefly for the first position That the truth shall alwayes be resisted Let vs now come to the second How the truth shall be resisted which as you see must be done by a kind of paterne As Moses was resisted by Iannes and Iambres Let vs therefore now examine who this Iannes and Iambres were and after what manner they resisted Moses for it is not throughly agreed vpon by all expositors Some take this Iannes and Iambres to be Corah and his consorts who resisted the authority of Moses in the wildernesse Now the manner after which they resisted him was this they being high minded and ambitious persons and euen burnt vp with enuie of other mens honours and preferments which they themselues affected and thought themselues more worthie of if they might be their owne Iudges they made a great Schisme and a dangerous commotion about the rule and authority of Moses and Aron and so gathering a great companie of their owne condition and quality they intended flat rebellion if God himselfe had not stayed them telling Moses and Aaron that they tooke too much vpon them in making themselues Lordes ouer the rest of their brethren And adding this for a reason that the whole congregation was as holy as they and that God was with one man as well as with an other Yea and one of their grand exceptions was this as Iosephus reporteth that they did Sacerdotium absque Populi suffâ—agio gerere That they were not elected to their places by the people though they could not be ignorant but that they both had beene elected by God himselfe before So that the maine ends which especially they aymed at were principally two Parity and Popularity the two deadly banes of all good order and of ciuill policie and the beaten pathes to confusion and Anarchie In which their commotion this is worthy the noting that those great reformers which sought thus to pull downe both Moses and Aaron as two vsurpers sought to set vp themselues into the selfe same places as Moses directly obiecteth vnto them Seemeth it a small thing saith he vnto Corah that God hath seuered thee from the multitude of Israel and all thy brethren the sonnes of Leui with thee and do ye also seeke the office of the priest Marke the Leuites cry out against pride and ambition of Priests as certaine male contented Ministers doe likewise against Bishops whom God hath made their rulers but what is the drift and end of such their declamations onely that which was theirs that these being displaced they might creepe into their roomes So that it is not humility but it is another pride which driueth such men so hotly to declame against pride And this was the resisting of Iannes and Iambres in the former times if by them be meant Corah and his mutinous companions Let vs now looke downe into those latter times and see whether the truth hath not beene resisted after the selfe same manner with vs heere at home that it was then with him Haue there not stood vp amongst vs certaine ambitious and seditious Corahs of the tribe of Leui who bursting with enuie at the honour and preferment of the reuerend Fathers and Gouernours of our Church who sit in Moses chaire haue both by word and writing indeauoured to resist them and thereby to extenuate or rather indeede exterminate all their lawfull authority and iurisdiction vnder the pretence of a new reformation Haue they not told them plainely that they take too much vpon them in setting vp themselues aboue their fellow Ministers who ought to be al equalles 2. Haue they not brought for theÌ„selues the same allegation that those seditious persons did that al the people of God are holy and that euery Minister is as good as a Bishop and ought to haue as great authority as he Is it not one of their chiefest greeuances that the election of Ministers is not subiected vnto the peoples suffrages who are their great masters and whom they seruilely obserue with all addicted obsequiousnes Haue they not made as great and as dangerous a schisme in this owne Church about these matters as euer the other did in the Church of the Iewes And that which is the prime point of all the rest doe not their owne writings declare that all that rule and authority which they would take away from our reuerend prelacie they would assume againe and cunningly conuay vnto themselues vnder the name of the Presbyterie All this is more then manifest vnto men of any reach if they haue but with halfe an eye lookt into the peremptorie dealing and practice of their presumptuous Consistorie and of that enormous and vnlimited claime which it layeth vnto all authority both Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill But the same God which denied successe vnto that Schisme hath also restrained the proceedings of this his name be praised for it for the very ground fouÌ„dation whereupon these men builded their imaginarie Babel and towers in the aire hath begunne long agoe to sinke vnder their feete as it did wiih those mutiners so that a great part of them are swallowed vp by it and the rest are fast following vnto the center of Shisme onely the cry of a few of the hindmost may still be heard amongst vs as they are in sinking downe which can not much longer be irksome and tedious because they be in the way to silence And thus much for the former application of this storie if by Iannes and Iambres bee vnderstood Corah and his seditious companie Now other expositors and those the greater number doe expound this otherwise affirming this Iannes and Iambres to be those two Egyptian sorcerers which resisted Moses in the presence of King Pharao Now the manner after which they resisted him was this When as Moses Aaron were sent into Egypt to deliuer the Israelites from their slauery and bondage they auouched to King Pharao that The Lord God of Israel had sent them on that message and for the proofe of their assertion they confirmed their Ambassage by diuers signes and strange wonders
obseruatione facilitatem and in significatiâ—ne dignitatem So that both Augustine and Caluin do make this spirituall signification of which you doe seeme to be so greatly afraid to be in all ceremonies a necessary condition And therefore Caluin reproueth the ceremonies of the Papists not for hauing a signification but for the darknes obscurity of their signification comparing them in that place ad scenam histrionicam and ad magicam incantationem for this onely reason because they be Cerimoniae non intellectae And in the conclusion giueth this generall censure of them Illas omnes caeremonias corruptas esse et noxias per quas homines ad Christum non diriguntur so that hee maketh Christ to bee the body of our ceremonies as well as of the Iewish not onely alloweth but also exacteth a signification of them The like doth also Peter Martir in his epistle to Bishop Hooper being troubled as it seemeth with this selfe-same scruple that you are Quomodo saâ—th he priuabimus eccleâ—â—am hac libertate vt non possit suis ritibus aliquid signisicare And he bringeth in the same place a most pregnant example out of the Apostle Paule which confirmeth his iudgment For he not onely commandeth wiues to be subiect to their husbands by direct precept but he also ordaineth that by this significaÌ„t ceremony they should expresse it to come alwaies to the Church with their heads couered â—n which ceremony as you see beside comelâ—nes and order he hath a respect to a Godly signification finally the most Diuines that I haue redde beside comelines and order require in all ceremonies that they tend directlly vnto edification Now edifie they can not vnles both they haue a signification and that significatioÌ„ be likewise vnderstood Vnknowne ceremonies as vnknowne tongues cannot possibly edifie if by interpretation they be not made knowne Yea euen the Reformers themselues require this properly in all their ceremonies Caluin saith that Ceremoniae must be pietatis excercitia quae ad Christum eecte nos deducant Goulartius in his Annotations vpon the 74. Epistle of Saint Cyprian to Pompeius saith that Rites and cermonies must alwaies haue regard not onely of order but also of edification too Yea and euen T. C. himselfe forgetting the danger which before he fained of making ceremonies sacraments if they had any signification yet else-where yeeldeth that they ought to haue it For in one place he affirmeth thaâ— beside the ends by you named of comelines and order they ought to be done vnto edification making this a distinct head from those two fore-mentioned Whereby it is euident that he intendeth that ceremonies should otherwise edifie then onely by their comelines and order Which they cannot do without a signification In an other place he affirmeth that Ceremonies ought to be helpers to promote the Doctrine of the Church which how they should do I know not if they signifie not therefore the Authors of the admonitioÌ„ doubt not to adde to their ceremonies a significatioÌ„ For they would abolish kneeling for popery and establish sitting at the communion adding this for a reasoÌ„ because sitting doth better expresse the mistery of Christs holy supper Because by sitting we signifie rest and a full finishing of all legall ceremonies in Iesus Christ. So that they neuer doubted that the adding of a significatioÌ„ vnto a ceremony would be the institutioÌ„ of a new sacrament belike this conceit of yours was not theÌ„ hatched How these men agree with Cartwright or he with Caluin yea or with himselfe I leaue for those men to reconcile whoÌ„ it most concerneth and who haue found in their consciences the incoÌ„uenience of following his vngrouÌ„ded fantasies but if our reformers do not corrupt the supper of Christ by adding a significaÌ„t ceremony vnto it why should we be thought to corrupt the baptisme of Christ by adding a like significant signe vnto it Therefore by all the fore-cited both reasons and authorities it appeareth that it is no sinne in a ceremonie to haue a signification but rather a folly if it lack one as Saint Augustine truly teacheth vs Who maketh it a sufficient reason why the Church should reiect them when they see no sufficient reason why it did accept them as they cannot in those ceremonies that bee brutish and insignificant what reason can bee alledged why any such should be accepted The third obiection Seeing our church according to the Scriptures hath abandoned all monuments of superstition and the signe of the crosse in baptisme is apt to breed a present remembrance of that horrible idolatry committed by it in the synagogue of Rome I haue doubted how we can retaine it for perill of falling into idolatry Answer For the preamble of this third obiection That our church hath abandoned all monuments of superstition it is a very true position and therefore that the crosse as our church vseth it should bee a monument of superstition implyeth a contradiction The rest of this obiection is so loose and vntrussed that I see not how it should bee to your purpose ad-apted But if you will admit of my diuination I gesse that this must be your reason Whatsoeuer is dangerous to lead vs to idolatry that ought to bee auoyded in the seruice of God But the signe of the crosse in Baptisme is such Ergo. The proposition of which argument you taking for granted bestow your whole proofe vpon the Assumption which you strengthen by this reason Whatsoeuer is apt to breed a remembrance of the horrible idolatry committed by it in the Synagogue of Rome that is dangerous to lead vs vnto idolatry But the signe of the crosse in baptisme is such ergo In these two Syllogismes as I conceiue it is the whole strength and force of this obiection contained let vs therefore examine the seuerall partes as well of your Protosyllogisme as of your Prosyllogisme First therefore for the proposition of your former Syllogisme that whatsoeuer is dangerous to lead vs to idolatrie that ought to be auoided in the seruice of God This word Dangerous is a word of ambiguous signification importing either that which naturally and necessarily carrieth danger with it or that which onely casually and accidentally may giue some occasion of danger by it In both which senses this word Dangerous is vsed in one sentence in the scripture where Demetrius speaking against the doctrine of Saint Paul he saith that it is Dangerous not only to bring the state into reproofe but also to bring the temple of their goddesse into contempt To the latter of these purposes the doctrine of S. Paul was naturally dangerous yea and necessarily too viz to the bringing of their temple into contempt because hee taught that they were no gods which were made with hands but to the other purpose of reprouing the state or of taking away the gaine of their art it was but only accidentally dangerous So
Resp. The same particular crosse which wee make the Papists neither doe nor can abuse and much lesse can they the whole Species of crossing whereof a part remaineth with vs as well as with them if wee should grant that our crosse were of the same Species with theirs which I thinke it is not But if that were granted then all which the Papists can possibly abuse is onely so much of the Species of crossing as they haue in their owne possession Now for the abuse which is offered vnto some Indiuidua of any Species why the other indiuidua of the same species though not so abused should bee condemned there is neither right nor reason no more then if wee should condemne the whole action of kneeling beecause idolaters do vse to kneele vnto their idols I confesse that the scripture commandeth to destroy not onely the idols them-selues but also euen their altars too But this must bee onely vnderstood of the same Indiuidua which haue bene abused not that the whole Species for their sake is condemned The Isralites did not thinke them-selues bound by this commandement to ouerthrow the Rubenites altar though it were erected without any warant in show had some repugnancie with gods owne commandement Nay Beza yealdeth not thus much for hee thinketh it not necessary that the same altar which hath beene abused vnto popish idolatry should of necessity be altered but that it may serue as well as a table for the vse of the sacrament So that he is so far from thinking that the abuse of one Indiuiduum corrupteth the whole Species that he thinketh not the same Indiuiduum it selfe to remaine corrupted when the abuse thereof is remoued as it is in our crosse which yet is not the same with the Papists crosse neither numero nor Specie as wee shall see hereafter With Beza concurreth Caluin in the thesis that the abuse of one particular corrupteth not the whole Species For then the idolatrous abuse of some images should make all images vnlawfull But Caluin himselfe alloweâ—h Historicall images as helps vnto memory and saith that they haue a profitable vse not onely In monendo but also In docendo Beza goeth yet further allowing not onely Historicall images but also euen Symbolical too For he alloweth the painting not onely of holy histones but also of holy visions too Verbi causa That of Isai. cap. 6.1.2 c. and that of Daniell cap 7.9.10.13.14 wherein God himselfe must needs bee represented And he thinketh that by the helpe of such images the text it selfe may bee illustrated and better vnderstood The translators of our Geneua bible goe yet further for they in the 33. cap of Numbers in one page set downe the image not onely of the brazen serpent now after it hath bene abused but also of the Isralites golden calfe which was neuer well vsed Which they would neuer haue done if they had beene perswaded that the abuse which was offered to one of these images had so infected and tainted the whole Species that none other of them could for euer after haue any lawfull vse Yea and all those images they place euen in the Bible whereby they must needs intend to haue some vse of them in the seruice of God Let these examples be well considered and then giue vs a reason how they may lawfully set downe an image of that same idoll which hath bene abused and not wee as lawfully vse that signe of the crosse which hath neuer beene abused Ob. Now for your second reason in this fourth obiection to witte that the signe of the crosse is but an inuention of man and that therefore it hauing beene abused vnto idolatry may not be vsed in the seruice of God that is a reason compacted of many errours For first as concerning your Antecedent I thinke that wee may vppon better ground affirme that the vse of the crosse is as an Apostolicall tradition theÌ„n you that is but meerely an humain inuention For first diuers of the fathers expresly affirme so of it as namely Tertullian Lib de corona cap 4. whereas hee saith of the crosse that though it haue not Legem scripturarum yet it hath both Traditionem auctricem and consuetudinem confirmatricem So likewise Basil lib. de spiritu sancto cap. 27. He ascribeth as great authority to the Apostolicall traditions as he doth vnto the Apostolicall writings and reckoneth for the chiefest of them the signe of the crosse So likewise Damascene lib. 4. de orthodoxa fide cap. 17. Secondly the practise of the whole Catholike church which hath euer from the time of the very Apostles had this ceremonie in vse doth giue great strength vnto the iudgement of the fore-named Fathers Saint Augustine saith that whatsoeuer is generally obserued of all churches as the vse of the crosse hath beene that assuredly is either an Apostolicall tradition or at the least the Canon of some generall counsell And Tertullian from the generall obseruation proueth that it is an Apostolicall tradition Idonea testis probatae traditionis est perseuerantia obseruationis for otherwise it is not likely that all churches would so generally haue consented in this more then in any other ceremonie as it appeareth they did by Saint Basils testimonie who calleth this signing with the crosse both primam and vulgatissimam traditionum Thirdly that great reuerence and high estimation which all the Fathers from the first to the last haue had of this ceremonie though all of them doe not expresly call it an Apostolicall tradition must needs argue that they thought it to haue a better institution then to be meerely and simply an humaine inuention Finally if it be but an humaine inuention let vs know I pray you the first inuenter of it and when it was first decreed and how it came so soone to bee so generally obserued Which if you cannot shew vs I thinke that wee may with greater probabilitie esteeme it to be an Apostolicall tradition the fore-alledged reasons giuing strength to our coniecture then you can without the like call it a mans inuention Now for your consequent if your antecedent were granted yet might that with great reason be denyed For first admit that this signing with the crosse were indeed no better then a meere humaine inuention doth therfore the abuse of it in one place take away all vse of it in any other or the abuse of it at one time destroy the good vse of it for euer after by what reason say you this you your selues allow that the creatures of God though they haue beene abused yea and worshipped for idols in the highest degree as all Sheepe and Oxen were by the Agyptians yet that in the same singular identity they may afterward be vsed in the seruice of God as Gedions Oxe was which being consecrated as a sacrifice for Baal yet afterwards was offered vp vnto God and why may not
the Church doth not tyrannize ouer mens consciences in ordaining significant rites and ceremonies but these men would tyrannize ouer the Church who would spoile her of that her lawfull authoritie especially they not being able to produce any Scripture whereby shee is abridged of that power Ob. But though the Church should haue power to ordaine rites and ceremonies for priuate order in it selfe yet hath it no power to appoint any out-ward signe to bee a note of our generall profession but that is GODS owne peculiar prerogatiue Gen 17 7.11 Resp. That the Church hath authority in greater matters then either in adding significations to ceremonies or outward notes to our profession very many instances doe notably declare First that whereas Christ instituted his supper at the time of supper it hath changed that time from the euening to the morning which is an altering in circumstance of Christs owne institution Secondly whereas the Apostles decreed in a generall councell that Christians should abstaine from bloud and from stranglers that hath it likewise altered and so cancelled an Apostolicall constitution The like authority they shewed in altering the ancient day of the Sabboth and administring Baptisme vnto children in this they wanting the commandement of Christ in that they changing the commandement of God From which instances we may argue as from the greater to the lesse That if they erred not in those fore-named ordinances much lesse haue they erred in adding significations vnto their ceremonies by the same reason why hath not the church as great a power to adde outward signes vnto our profession as to ordaine other ceremonies concerning our Ecclesiasticall administration Is the signe the lesse lawfull because it is a signe of our profession Why then is none at all lawfull for not onely this signe of the crosse but also all other Ecclesiasticall ceremonies as Aquinas teacheth vs are signes of our profession Hee saith that Omnes ceremoniae be protestationes quaedam fidei Tertullian being newly conuerted vnto Christianity forsooke his old habit which was a gowne and betooke him to a new which was a Cloake that so with the change of his garment hee might notifie to the world the change of his profession which certainly hee would neuer haue done if he had beene perswaded that the adding of such a signe vnto his profession had beene an incroching vpon GODS owne prerogatiue and peculiar iurisdiction The Christians likewise in the primitiue Church euer from the time of the very Apostles haue vsed this same ceremonie of the crosse which is now in question as a marke and a signe of their profession and yet did neuer either they themselues thinke it or the greatest aduersaries that they had impute it as a presumption and incroching against Gods owne prerogatiue as Saint Basil obserueth Nec his quisquam contradicit saith hee speaking of the traditions and ceremonies of the Church Quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica So that this obiection of yours if it be good condemneth not onely our vse of the crosse now after it hath beene abused by the Papists but euen the vse of it in the primatiue Church before it was abused Or if it be weake it is weake against vs as well as against them For the vse of it now is no more an incrochment vppon Gods owne prerogatiue then it was in that time Ob. But you proue by that place Gen 17.7.11 that God onely hath power to adde signes vnto his couenant and by consequent that they which adde any such signes presume to enter vppon Gods owne prerogatiue Resp. But this proofe which you alledge hath two great faults in it First that it is not ad idem and secondly that it is not concludent in the cause not ad idem thus To proue that the Church may not adde any ceremoniall signe vnto our profession you produce a place of scripture which speaketh onely of sacramentall signes It is circumcision which was a sacramentall signe that God in that place did adde vnto his couenant Such signes I do yeald that God onely may institute But as for the crosse wee make it not a sacrament but onely a ceremonie And wee may truly say of it as Saint Augustine doth of the birth day of Christ Non in sacramento celebratur sed tantum in memoriam reuocatur Secondly if your proofe were ad idem and proper to the purpose yet is it inconcludent For by what rule of reason can this consequent follow God added a sacramentall signe vnto his couenant Ergo man may not adde a ceremoniall signe if God added signes vnto his couenant to assure vs of his faithfull performance of his part why may not wee adde signes vnto our couenant to assure him of our faithfull performance of our part Tertullian saith that Licet omni fideli constituere quod deo congruat quod disciplina conducat and quod saluti proficiat Dicente domino cur autem non et a vobis ipsis quod iustum est iudicatis marke et a vobis ipsis Iosua when he had heard the people make an earnest profession that they would serue the Lord not any other God he rested not in their bare profession but sealed it by this ceremonie by pitching vp a great stone vnder an oke which hee sayd should witnesse against them if they brake their couenant as Iacob before by the like ceremonie had sealed the couenant betweene him and Laban So that wee are not debarred by that place of Genesis but that we may adde signes if not seales vnto Gods couenant if Gods couenant and our profession be Synonima as you seeme to make them in your Maior proposition Now for your Minor That our profession of Christ is the couenant of God it may in some sense bee allowed to bee true although as you know the couenant betweene God and man doth passe in some-what an other forme viz. That he should be our God and we should be his people where the Prophet expoundeth our part of the couenant to bee the faithfull obeying of him and not the outward professing of him As for faith confession which you alledge out of the Rom. cap. 10.9 to be the whole sum of our profession and of our part of the couenant with God that is not true they bee partes indeede of our couenant with God but our whole part they be not vnlesse you take both faith confession in a very large signification faith not only for beleeuing with the heart but also for working with the hand And confession not onely for the speeches of the tongue but also for the gestures and behauiours of the body By which meanes though not there nominatim expressed yet our God ought to bee serued and the truth both of our faith and confession to be testified So that vnto those two points of beleeuing and confessing we not onely may but also must adde
formerly shewed And therefore this obiection being but a consequent grounded vpon the former neede not to be confuted it falling of it selfe as Abiram did when his ground sunke vnderneath him I haue formerly shewed that it is not true that the vse of the crosse in witnessing vs Christians doth any thing detract from the sacrament of baptisme but rather addeth therevnto a more plaine explication For the signe of the crosse marked in our fore-heads in the nature of the signe doth more directly witnesse and more properly expresse that we are not ashamed to be counted his seruants that died vpon the crosse then the sprinkling of water vpon the fore-head doth And therefore in respect of this fit and oposite spiritual significatioÌ„ conspiring so fully with the sigfication of baptisme and expressing it so liuely that ceremonie can not so iustly bee counted idle as your insignificant ceremonies may Wherevpon no man can haue any iust cause to doubt whether such a religious vse of the crosse should be a taking of Gods name in vaine But rather it may very truely bee sayd that such vaine conceipts fathered vpon Gods name and such violent detorting wresting of Gods commandements from their purposes vnto ours is indeed a taking of Gods name in vaine The eight obiection Albeit the vse of this signe bee ancient and from things of common life were brought into the sacrament before Popery came in yet sithens consignatio crucis quae autiquitus sine superstitione fuit et tollerari tunc potuit patefecit aditum abominandae superstitioni et hyperduliae crucis horribilissimae my scruple is how that which was at first not euilly taken vp may now bee well continued Especially seeing the Cannon-law it selfe sayth Distinct 63. as it is cited by D. Reinolds against Hart if our predecessors haue done some things which at that time when they were first done were without fault and afterward bee turned into error and superstition wee are taught by Ezechias his breaking of the brazen serpent that posterity may destroy them without delay and with great authority Thus farre the Canonists Answere The vse of the crosse in the primitiue Church though some-times before washings feastings walkings and other such like actions of common life yet was alwaies vsed with a kinde of religion as it were to sanctifie such common actions by a religious ingresse but that not ex opere operato but ex opere operantis the signe of the crosse beeing tacita invocatio meritorum Christi and so vsed by antiquitie The abuse which afterward grew from thence if it grew from thence was rather an offence springing from mans naturall corruption prone vnto sinne then any necessarie consequent of such a religious custome as Beza whose words you cite would seeme to make it vsing therin a manifest Elench A non causa pro causa For with as great reason may he make the communion-bread to bee the cause of Popish artolatry as the crosse to bee the cause of their idolatry for the bread hath beene as grosly abused by them as the crosse hath And you may say as truely of the bread that patefecit aditum abominaendae superstitioni as you can of the crosse Your granting that this signe at the first was not euilly taken vp is a iustifying of our vse of it who reduce it now againe vnto the primitiue vse which was not euill Your reason why it ought to be abolished because it since hath beene abused is falty many waies and therefore would further be examined It may as I take it be reduced to this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer hath beene abused to idolatrie and superstition that ought to be destroyed But the signe of the crosse hath beene so abused ergo Your Maior you proue by a sentence out of the Cannon-law Your Minor by a sentence out of Bezaes Epistles Let vs therefore now examine as well your positions as your proofes First therefore as concerning your Maior proposition That whatsoeuer hath beene abused vnto idolatrie ought to bee destroyed it is vtterly false For if all things that haue beene so abused should be presently abolished we shold leaue our selues nothing that might bee rightly vsed So generall or rather indeed so transcendent hath this sinne of idolatry bin For there is none of all Gods workes nay there is none of mans workes but it hath in some place or other beene some way or other abused to idolatry So that if for other mens abuses wee should be forced to renounce the things so abused wee should depriue our selues of the principall helpes and muniments of our life The Caldeans did worship the fire for their God the Aethiopians the water Shall therefore we Christians be aqua and igni interdicti or because the Papists haue worshipped their bread may not Protestants vse bread you see what grosse consequents wil necessarily follow vpon your antecedent Therfore though your propositioÌ„ in â—ome sense may haue some truth in it yet is it not to be admitted in such a generallity as by you it is propounded That whatsoeuer hath vnto idolatry beene abused should by and by without further examination bee destroyed But vnto the abolishing of things so peruerted if by the law they be established wee must proceede with many cautions First Caluin telleth vs that wee must neither Temere nor Subinde nor leuibus de causis ad nouationem decurrere but in changing of things established we must vse great aduisement Secondly wee must with indifferencie consider whether their commodities or discommodities be the greater if the coÌ„modities then that sentence of the Comike is a rule of right reason That Cuius multa commoda sunt illius quo incommoda ferre decet If the euill bee greater then the good then must wee consider whether it be seperable or inseperable If seperable then is that a good rule which the orator giueth vs non minus probandam esse medicinam quae sanat vitiosas partes quà m quae exsecat If inseperable then yeeld we that counsell of the Poet to bee necessary that immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum est ne pars syncera traâ—atur So that this abolishing of things of good vse for some abuse that hath growne vnto them is then only allowable when their euil is greater then their good or when it is incureable Both which points are far otherwise in the signe of the crosse as we see by experience And therefore no cause why for that abuse of it which hath beene in an other Church and is long agoe reformed in our Church so ancient a ceremony should now be abolished Ob. But you strengthen your proposition with two fortifications The one is a sentence of the Cannon law which coÌ„mendeth vnto vs the abolitions of things abused vnto superstition The other is an example of Canonicall scripture which commendeth Ezechias for putting the same in practise Resp. First for that iudgement of the Canon law if wee were of some mens disposition we might allow
it for a good reason that the rule could not be good because it is fetched out of the Canon-law was no better but a Popes-decree But wee will not vse such peeuishnesse but leaue that to our aduersaries Let vs heare what the law sayth and how farre it maketh for you Per hoc magna authoritas est habenda in ecclesia vt si nonnulli ex praedecessoribus et maioribus nostris fecerint aliqua quae illo tempore potuerunt esse sine culpa et postea verâ—untur in errorem et superstitionem sine tarditate aliqua et cum magna authoritate à posteris destruantur In which sentence there be two things to be considered of vs. The first is the quality of the persons of whoÌ„ he speaketh the second his qualified maner of speaking For the persons heere ment by the name of Posterity it must needs be vnderstood of men in authority not of any priuate persons The words of the decree are most plaine pregnant These ought to be of great authority in the church Why that if things wel begun do degenerate into euill by that great authority they may bee destroyed whereby hee implyeth that hee which will do the worke of Ezechias in destroying things abused he ought to haue the authority of Ezechias Otherwise if therbe a disparity in the agents there wil certainly follow a disparity in the actions For if that clause in the latter end of the decree cum magna authoritate a posteris destruantur bee so construed as some men haue wrested it that the very example of Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent which before he had alledged doth giue great authority vnto euery other man to do the like it is not onely a manifest peruerting of the Gramatical coÌ„struction but would also proue the subuerting of all ciuill constitutions For what authority doth the example of magistrates which orderly repeale inconuenient lawes giue vnto priuate men disorderly to breake them whilst they stand in force Or how doth the action of the Magistrate who hath his authority inuested in himselfe as a publike person authorize priuate men to do the same worke by their voluntary immitation If this licence were granted it would proue not the taking away of abuses but the sowing of ten thousand abuses for one Saint Augustine speaking of this fact of Ezechias saith that he destroyed this serpent by his publike authority not by any priuate fantasie He did religiosa potestate deo seruire Caluin vpon the second coÌ„mandement expounding that place of Deuteronomie yee shall destroy all the places wherein those nations serued their Gods yee shall ouerthrow their altars and breake downe their pillers and burne their groues with fire c. He citeth the iudgement of S. Augustine who saith that this commandement was not giuen vnto priuate men but to the publike Magistrate And hee commendeth his iudgment to bee very sound and wise Wolphius likewise who handleth this question ex professo Whether priuate men may destroy the monuments of idolatry He pereÌ„ptorily denieth it Priuatis hominibus vt haec agant pius ac sapiens author est nemo Speaking euen of this very fact of Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent And he strenghneth his iudgment by the example of Gedion who all the while that he was a priuate man he indured the Alter the groue of Baal laid no hand to pull downe that idolatry but when he once was called vnto the magistracie furnished thereby with lawfull authority then hee did the deed he did it throughly So that the magistrate beeing the person whome the decree vnderstandeth by the name of posterity his example can bee no warrant for any man to do the like if he lacke the like authority Now for the qualification of the speech which was the 2. thing to bee considered in the law the forme of speech which it vseth is but onely permissiue granting a liberty and not preceptiue imposing a necessity leauing place for the Magistrate with aduisement to consider whether the abuse be such as doth necessarily require such an vtter destruction The law saith That posterity may destroy them You say that posterity must destroy them From May to Must is no good consequence That Logike rule as you know is growne almost into a prouerbe A posse ad esse non valet argumentum we yeeld that posterity may destroy them if the abuse can hardly bee reformed that it must destroy them if it can not be reformed at all But neither of these can bee said of the crosse whose abuses wee haue reformed with very great facility and yet not destroyed the right and true vse of it as experience sheweth plainly And therefore those men which match our crosse with the brazen serpent thinke it as necessary to bee destroyed as that they truly fall into that censure of Caluin that praecisé vrgendo quod per se medium est sunt nimio rigore superstitiosi Ob. But happily you will say that if this sentence of the Canon law do not inforce the abolishing of the crosse yet the example of good King Ezechias doth For if he destroyed the brazen serpent being GODS owne ordinance because it was idolatrously abused then much more ought wee to abolish the crosse which is but mans inuention it hauing bene likewise idolatrously abused Resp. This example of Ezechias is very much stood vpon and therefore it would be the more narrowly examined Your argument is inforced A maiori ad Minus and it may be framed thus Ezechias spared not the ordinance of GOD but destroyed it because it had beene abused Ergo much lesse ought wee to spare the ordinance of man but destroy it if it haue bene likewise abused I answer that your Antecedent which is the ground of your argument is not true Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent did not therein destroy the ordinance of GOD. For in the brazen serpent there be things to be considered Viz the first erection for the healing of the people and the preseruation for the remembrance of that benifit The first erection was indeed the ordinance and iniunction of GOD himselfe but the preseruation was the meere inuention of man It issuing from the good intent of the people without any warrant or commandement from GOD. Now that worke beeing finished in the wildernes for which GOD erected it that which Ezechias destroyed was but onely mans inuention to witt the preseruation of it So that if the crosse be but onely an humane inuention and not Apostolicall tradition yet euen so that thing in the serpent which Ezechias destroyed was no better And therefore the ground of your argument A maiori faileth it beeing rather a false presumption then a true position Ob. But happily you will say that the brazen serpent had yet a further vse ordained by GOD namely to be a figure of our sauiour CHRIST And so ought to
commandement But the signe of the crosse is a religious image Ergo It is forbidden in the second commandement For your Maior proposition if by religious images you had vnderstood onely such as are made to bee religiously adored wee should quickly haue agreed but you taking the name of Religious in a sense of such enormous largenesse viz. for any thing that any way may helpe vs in religion as appeareth in the exposition of your Minor I must needs require some better reason then your owne coniecturall conceipt that all such images are in that commandement forbidden Otherwise your proposition I deny as false and that for these reasons First because I dare not condemne all those famous and renowned churches which euen from Christs time vnto ours haue vsed the crosse to haue beene idolatrous nor those ancient learned and godly Fathers which haue thought and taught so reuerently of it to haue beene idolaters which absurdity must needs follow if either this obiection or your fourth haue any waight in them Secondly because I finde the whole streame of expositors to bee against you amongst whom I haue giuen instance both in Caluine and Beza and of our owne translators of the Geneua Bible pag. 21. Whose instances I wish you more deepely to consider of and how farre their iudgement differeth from your proposition Thirdly I finde the practise of God himselfe to be against you in commanding the Cherubines to bee placed in the Tabernacle which as Bishop Babbington truly collecteth must needes make GOD contrary vnto himselfe if all religious images were so simply forbidden in the second commandement as you affirme in your proposition Fourthly to come to our owne particular instance if the signe of the crosse were simply forbidden in the second commandement then were not only Gods practise contrary to his precept but also one precept were contrary to another For he commandeth expresly in the prophecie of Ezechiel to marke certaine men in the fore-head with the signe of the crosse which there he calleth Signum Tau which being by Character expressed as there it is commanded hath none other forme then the signe of the crosse as S Hierom expresly expoundeth that place Thau litera crucis haebet similitudinem quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur Therefore this second commandement doth neither particularly forbid the signe of the crosse nor generally all kinds of religious images but onely in ordinatione ad cultum to which purpose the crosse is not vsed in our Church where as you know it is not worshipped Now for your Minor that our crosse is a religious image that is more false then the former was An image our crosse cannot be called but in a very constrained sence seeing that in making it we do not intend either to expresse or to honor that materiall crosse wherevpon our Sauiour suffered whose image you would insinuate that signe to be but onely to testifie by that outward signe that we are not ashamed of the sufferings of Christ. As for the outward scheme representation of the crosse it more properly may be called a character then an image as I shewed you before in the letter Tau whose character is the perfect forme of the crosse as is likewise the Romane T. as Tertullian obserueth seeing that we referre it not eiconically to represent the crosse of Christ but Symbolically to represent his passion by that character Now that characters and images bee of two diuerse natures the Turkes plainly shew vs who are most superstitious in auoyding of images yet they do willingly admit of characters as appeareth in their coines So that the crosse can no more propperly be called an image then the letter T. can Yea euen the Papists themselues deny it to bee an image as appeareth by their distinguishing of imago crucis from signum crucis which is much more true in vs whose signe of the crosse is made rather to represent the sufferings of Christ then the crosse whereon he suffered But if our signe were a perfect resemblance of that crosse yet as long as we vse it not in any such sense it ought not as an image to bee obiected vnto vs. The Hieroglyphiks of the Egyptians were in their shape and proportion the images of birds and beasts and other creatures amongst which was also the crosse as Ruffin reporteth vnder which they signified the life to come but yet because they vsed those figures but only as Characters they are there to bee reputed not as images but as letters And therefore the signification of images is stretched and strained very far when such a poore character cleane contrary to the vse of it yet is fetched within the compasse of them I haue beene the more carefull to vindicate the crosse from this opinion of beeing an image not that it would hurt or preiudice the cause any whit if it were granted to be one but because I do see that T.C. and his followers haue such an notable art in making of images idols that if they happen to myslike any thing whatsoeuer they can presently transforme the same into an idol make it as cōtrary vnto Gods commandement as it is vnto their owne priuate fantasie and conceipt In this place you make the crosse an image and in your 4. obiection you make it an idol So likewse T. C in one place maketh the surplice an idoll calling it a wouen image in an other place he calleth a Bride an idol because her husband saith with my body I thee worship And thus euery thing which they misconceipt is by and by mishaped into an idol Wheras it is most true that they make an idol of their owne idle fancy and priuate conceipt for the honor of which bable they despise magistrats violate lawes force the very scriptures themselues But to returne You cal the crosse not only an image but also a religious image and yet as you know we do not worship it nor place any holines or religion in it more then in other ceremonies neither make we it a substancial part of Gods seruice but onely circumstantiall vsing it only as an ecclesiasticall ceremonie appointed in our church by humaine authority and not inioyned by God vpon mere necessity And therefore whensoeuer our church whom wee ought dutifully to obey in all things as our mother shall cease to command vs the vse of that ceremony we may then cease it lawfully neither euer wil call for it as a matter of necessity but will truly professe with Minutius Felix nos crucem neque adoramus neque optamus In the meane season if we vse it whilest it is commanded wee do not offend against the second commandement but they which refuse it offend against the fifth of not honoring with obedience their lawfull magistrates The eleauenth obiection I desire to haue it opened vnto mee by the word of God how this signe can bee affirmed to bee an honorable badge
cannot see how the crosse can be said to bee left vnto vs by them vnles you thereby intend that we haue as it were wrung it out of their hands and that so they left that to vs which they could not with-hold from vs. If you take this phrase left vnto vs in a sense so prodigally and prodigiously large that you count all that to bee left vnto vs by those men which haue vsed the same things before vs then may both the sunne and the moone and all the elements bee said to bee left vnto vs by idolaters and consequently to be The monuments of idolatry and so what is there any where which in this so large and so laxe a sense may not be called A monument of idolatry As for this point therefore we truly professe that wee borrow not this ceremonie from the Romish Synagogue though they haue more lately vsed it but from the primitiue Church who first ordained it So that as it cannot truly bee said that the Papists haue left vs either the Lords praier or the Apostles creed or the holy sacraments but that wee take all these by our owne right out of the holy scriptures which are open to vs as well as to them so can it not truely bee sayd that the Papists haue left vnto vs the crosse but that we do borrow it from the primitiue church whose customes the Papists haue no more authority to ingrosse vnto themselues then the Protestants haue but may as freely be vsed by vs as by them for Patet omnibus veritas nondum est occupata But if it were granted that this ceremony of the crosse though left vnto vs by the primitiue church yet were brought vnto vs by the hands of Papists doth that presently make it a monument of idolatry if one should receiue a token by the hand of a Pagan which were sent vnto him from a Christian is it therefore made a monument of idolatry because he that brought it was an idolater Holy orders were giuen vnto the first Protestants by the hands of Papists doth this so defile the orders of our ministery as to make them presently the monuments of idolatry Surely though the Papists haue very foule hands yet do I not take them to bee so vgly foule as the Harpies feete were which defiled all things that they once had touched non mihi persuadeo sayth Peter Martyr papatus impietatem esse tantam vt quicquid attingit contaminatum reddat quò bonis vsui sancto concedi non possit In whose Christian and charitable iudgement I doe willingly sit downe Ob. Now for your third obiection That the change of our end in the vse of the crosse doth not make any change in the nature of the thinge Resp. I wonder you will affirme a thing so contrary vnto the rules of Logike and reason Who knoweth not that of all the causes it is only The end which maketh all actions to be either good or euill especially in things of indifferent nature Tertullian doth giue vs some instances to this purpose et ego mihi gallinaceum macto non minùs quà m Aesculâ—pio Socrates saith he et si me odor alicuius loci offenderit Arabiae aliquid incendo What is the reason then that his killing of a cocke and his burning of incence beeing all one action with that of the idolaters yet is not idolatry as their action was He answereth it himselfe quia vsus ipsius administratio interest And againe that he did these things nec eodem ritu nec eodem habitu nec eodem apparatus quo agitur apud idola So that it was his difference in the end which made such a difference in the actions For as Saint Augustine to the same purpose obserueth non actibus sed finibus pensantur officia which our Sauiour also declareth by three notable instances in the Pharisies viz fasting almes praying al which good actions were in them corrupted by their euill ends because they did them to be seene of men So that the end as you see not only exempteth an action from sinne but also infecteth an action with sinne Ob. But you say That then by altering of the end wee may bring back againe euen heathen idols too Resp. I answere that the comparison is very vnequall For heathen idols are most euidently forbidden and condemned in the scripture which the crosse is not And yet that there may bee such an alteration in the end that euen heathen idols may haue some vse in Gods seruice I haue shewed you before out of Saint Augustines iudgment A reply to fortifie the tenth obiection Ob. All outward formes and liknesses in Gods worship ordained by man and that to edifie teach sturre vp mens affections towards God they are forbidden in the second commandement This is by the very text necessarily consequent Exod. 20 4. But the signe of the crosse is such a likenesse For Maister Hooker an authentike expositor of our ceremonies condemneth all as vaine that are not significant And your selfe shew that to be your iudgement in your answere Ergo c. That of Saint Paul that all ought to be to edifying I pray to haue it considered whether it bee vnderstood of such spirituall gifts onely as God gaue to his Church and as be there named 1. Cor. 14.26 Answere That all outward formes and likenesses ordained by man in the worship of God to edifie teach or sturre vp our affection towards God should bee forbidden in the second commandement I doe vtterly denie and I wonder that either your selfe or any other Christian should affirme it no word of the commandement making for it and the minde of the commandement making cleane against it The iudgment both of Caluin and Beza and of other Diuines I haue shewed against you pag. 21.45 The place which you cite Exod. 20.4 Thou shalt make thee no grauen image c. if you distract it from his meaning which followeth in the next words Thou shalt not bowe downe to them nor worship them doth make rather against the making of all images which errour I thinke you will not maintaine then against the applying them to so good an end as you in this place seeme to condemne Should any thing whatsoeuer be thought vnlawfull which instructeth our mindes and sturreth vp our affections truly towards GOD Surely if you were able to make good that euen Heathen Idols could truly and properly produce these effects I would not doubt to affirme euen them to bee lawfull So farre am I from thinking that any thing is in this commandement forbidden which either inlightneth our vnderstanding or inflameth our affection towards God I rather hold it for a certaine truth that Idols are here forbidden vpon a contrary supposition namely that they blinde our vnderstanding and auert our affection away from God And therefore your proposition wanteth some better proofe then your bare assertion for as I said I doe simply deny