faithfull servant of God And thus much to be answered to the Maior The Minor But the signe of the Crosse being a humane ordinance is become an Idoll Answere to the minor In the minor likewise there are two things comprehended First that the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme is a humane ordinance which none of vs euer denied but doe willingly acknowledg with Tertullian that Si legem expostules scripturarum nullam inuenies c. And yet we cannot see how this may ether aduantage the Treatisers cause or exclude the signe of the Crosse from being a lawfull and commendable Ceremonie in the service of God But for all that J must desier the Treatiser that he and J may demurre a little longer vpon this point For notwithstanding al that is already graunted me thinks J may further say that it is so a humane ordinance as it is also a diuine It is a diuine ordinance in as much as it is a part of that decency which is commended vnto vs by the Apostle and it is a humane constitution in as much as it doth particularly designe that which in the generall was pointed at rather then expressed And this doctrine J learne of Mr. Caluine himselfe Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 10. who giveth this rule quia in externa disciplina et ceremonijs c Because God in outward discipline and Ceremonies would not prescribe any thing seuerally for vs to follow for that he fore-sawe that those things would depend most vppon the condition of times neither iudged he one forme agreeable to al ages in this case we must resort to those generall rules which he hath giuen that according there vnto al things may be examined what soeuer the necessitie of the Church shall require to be commanded Him selfe followeth this rule and by the Ceremonie of kneeling in the time of solemne praiers which he vseth as an example for illustration he giueth vs this general directioÌ„ how to iudge of this whole matter of Ceremonies Namely out of St Paules general exhortation 1. Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently in order to deduce every particular after this sorte VVhatsoeuer Ceremonie is done decently and in order is a part of St Paules generall exhortation But the Ceremonie of kneeling at solemne praiers is done decently and in order Ergo. It is a part of St Paules generall exhortation Now because the Treatiser and his adherents will hardly belieue that this particular Ceremonie of the Crosse in Baptisme can as iustly as that of kneeling be deduced and applied out of this generall J wil out of Mt. Caluines own grounds cleare this point also First this Ceremonie of the Crosse in Baptisme hath in it that Decorum or Decency that by Mt. Calvin is required Decorum or decency as he teacheth consisteth in these points That it be so agreeable to the reuerence of holy mysteries as it may also be a fit exercise to pietie or at the least that it adde a bewtie or ornament fit and agreeable to the action And that not without fruit but so as it may admonish the faithfull with what modesty religion and obseruance they should handle sacred things Al these parts of DecoruÌ„ are in the Crosse It is agreeable to the reuerent maiestie of sacred mysteries For what can be more agreeable to holy mysteries then the signe of that which was the consuÌ„mation and accomplishment of all holy mysteries Then the signe of that whereon he hath nayled the Bill that was against vs through the bloud of which Crosse he hath set at peace both the things in earth and the things in heauen Secondly it is a fit exercise vnto pietie For De sanct ser 19 de verb Apost ser 7. Tract in Ioan. 118. Ad ChristuÌ„ rectà nos ducit It leadeth vs directly vnto Christ and putteth vs in minde of him that died for vs shadowing out vnto vs the height and breadth length depth of his loue as S. Augustine sheweth in diverse sermons Thirdly it is an ornament Quia crux Christigloria Christiani an ornament fit and agreeable to the action The actioÌ„ is the receaving of the child into the body of Christ and therefore most agreeable it is that the childe shoulde even then be signed with the marke badge of him in to whose service he is presently receaved Fourthly it is not without fruit but doth admonish the faithful with what modestie religion and observance they should handle holy mysteries Two things are commonly obiected by the Treatisers friends against the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme First that it is a vaine idle ceremony of no fruit and to no purpose Secondly that by being significant and symbolicall it bringeth a newe worde into the Church These two obiections doe vtterly thwart overthrow each the other Against the second the iudgement of Caluin in this conditioÌ„ is mainely opposite who here requireth in the decencie of every ceremony that it be not without fruit c. intimating therby that such ceremonies as are not significant must needs be vaine Against the first I am to answere now I doubt not but it wil appeare to be of much fruit and to very good purpose if it do admonish vs of these things And that it so doth J declare thus First it admonisheth vs of modestie because it is as a watchword secret remembrance to keepe vs froÌ„ sin the grand impugner of modesty mother of shame bringing to minde whatsoeuer Christ hath wrought and we vowed against sin and so causing that Christian men never want a most effectual though a silent Teacher to avoide whatsoeuer may deseruedly procure shame And for that cause it is made vpon the forehead Aug. tract in Ioan. 53. vbi est quodammodo sedes verecundiae vt de nomine eius fides non erubescat c. That we should neither be so bashfull as to be ashamed of that wherein there is no shame nor so sine fronte as the same S. Augustine speaketh in another place as not to feare that Jn psal 141. which is the only deserver and bringer on of shame Secondly it doth admonish vs of ReligioÌ„ for those reasons alleadged before in the condition Sed et si soluÌ„ hoc significat quod ait Apostolus that they that belong to Jesus Christ haue crucified the flesh with the lusts and concupiscences thereof how great a good turne vvere that alone Thirdly it doeth admonish vs with what observance holy things are to be handled namely with an eâ—e due regarde alwaies had to the easines and familiarity of the Ceremonie that it be vicine hard at hand and obvious nor far fetcht as prophane ceremonies commonly are but admodum simplex praesentis admonitionis crucis Christi as Mr. Bucer in his censure iudgeth this to be Againe this ceremony hath in it also that order which in Mr. Calvines opinion St. Paule intendeth because it is done with such moderation in our Church
be vsed in the seruice of God Answere to the Conclusion The ConclusioÌ„ of every syllogisme receaueth his virtue and strength of the premisses which being firme true it standeth good being weake and false it faileth is of no effect The Maior therfore of this syllogisme being false euery way as hath been declared and the Minor being vntruely fitted and applied to the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme vsed in our Church This Conclusion striketh without any force and missing the body lighteth into the aire and hurteth not And for any thing in this syllogisme contained the Crosse may be stil both lawfully and commendâ—bly vsed in the service of God And thus much for answere to the maine syllogisme the ground and foundation of this Treatise The Treatise 1. Sect. The vse of the Crosse in Baptisme is not a thing indifferent but vtterly vnlawfull for this reason It is against the Apostles precept 1. Joh. 5.21 Babes keepe your selues from Idols Answere From the maine syllogisme the Treatiser coÌ„meth to the proofe first of his maior and then of his minor Proofe of the Maior For so he telleth vs in the margent and we must needes beleeue the margent because it telleth vs so in Capital letters For otherwise if we looke vpon the words prefixed immediatly before his proofe we shal finde a proposition that is nether the Maior nor the Minor of the former syllogisme but a mixture composition of them both for it hath the tearmes of vnlawfull vsed in the Maior of the Crosse en Baptisme vsed in the Minor of a thing indifferent never yet mentioned in either proposition So that leaving that as an animal amphibion and of the two likelier to be the Minor I rather beleeue the Margent then the Text. And that the Treatiser may in some honest sort seeme to conclude his fundamental proposition I frame his argument after this manner That which is against the Apostles precept Babes keepe your selues from Idols may not lawfully be vsed in the service of God But the vse of an Idoll is against the Apostles precept Babes keepe your selues c. Ergo The vse of an Idoll is not lawfull in the service of God The Maior proposition I grant to be true but vpon these conditions 1 That you take the word against in his proper signification for contrary or opposite vnto not for praeter besides or otherwise then the Apostle prescribeth as most of your friends and favorites doe 2 That herevpon you be not too insolent and inferre this contrary conclusion Ergo Nothing may be vsed in the service of God but that which is in the Apostles precept For there are many things laudably vsed in Gods service whereof the Apostles haue giuen no precept For whereas the Apostle St. Paul promised the Corinthians other things will I set in order when J come and yet never after disposed or set in order those other things for ought that appeareth in any of his writings our vndoubted perswasion is that both the Apostles left many things vnordered and vndisposed also in matters of Ceremonie belonging to order decencie and edification there is alwaies a power left in the Church to dispose order such things according to the several times places natures and occasions of every Church To the Minor J answere that the vse of an Jdoll quatenus an Idoll that is while it is an Idol or as long as it retaines the forme credit and estimation of an Jdoll is indeede against the Apostles precept but this is no hinderance why wee may not vse that thing in Gods service which is now reclaimed from the Idolatrous vse though we certainely know that it was sometimes vsed as an Idol as before hath bin declared For those things which are recovered out of the euil vses wherevnto they were applied and restored to holy vses in Gods service Ipso ministerio consecrata sancta dicuntur in eius honore Aug. in ps 113 cui pro nostrâ salute inde servitur But let vs now see how the Treatiser doth first explane the sentence of S. Iohn in this next section afterwarde confirme his explanation in the third Treatise 2. Sect. For the explanatioÌ„ where of two things are to be scanned First what is meant by an Idoll Secondly howe far we are to keepe our selues from Idolles An Idoll is Quicquid praeter Deum diuiuo colitur honore and though some restraine an Idoll to a visible forme because it is deriued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet as a learned writer obserueth Zanch. de redemp li. 1. c. 17. Qui de omnibus idololatriae generibus acturi sunt latius nomen Idoli accipiant necesse est Idoli igitur nomine intelligitur quicquid homo vel simpliciter vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sibi extra verum Deum proponit fingitque colendum Neither is this spoken without good reason for nothing is properly an Idoll quatenus est visibilis forma sed quatenus religiosè colitur If therfore it be worshiped it may be an Idoll though it be no visible shape otherwise the worshipping of Angells the soules of the iust men were no Idolatry seeing these are inuisible spirits And therfore the signe of the Crosse if it be religiously worshipped may proue an Idoll though it bee transiens quiddam a thing vanishing in the aire and no permanent forme For as that learned Zanchie speaketh there is duplex Idolum the one reall the other imaginariuÌ„ tantum mente conceptum For answere to the second Question Men may keepe themselues from Idolls two wayes viz. a cultu ab vsu Idoli from the worship and from the vse of the Idoll For the first St. Paule is so strict that he alloweth not the Christians so much as to be present in the Temple at the Idolatrous feasts though they did it without any internall opinion or externall action of worshipping the Idoll But Iohn in this place doth not speake so much of the worshipping as the vse of the Idoll for as Augustine in psal 113. well obserueth the Apostle commandeth vt caueant non tantum a cultu simulacrorum sed a simulacris ipsis that they avoid not only the worship of the Images but also the Images or Idols themselues Now the vse of an Image or Idol may be ciuil or religious and both of them publike or priuate That an Image euen such an Image as is Idolatrously worshipped may be made and reteined for ciuil respects of ornament story or such like we make no question though the tolerating of them in open and publike places euen extra cultum be offensiue and turne into a snare as Geacons Ephod was to his posterity when it was abused to Idolatrie And vpon this ground we yeeld that though the Crosse be apparantly an Idoll yet in Princes banners coronations coyne Crowne or any other ciuil respect it may haue lawfull vse But that anything of mans deuising being worshipped as an Idoll
AN ANSVVERE TO A CERTAINE TREATISE OF THE CROSSE IN BAPTISME Intituled A Short Treatise of the Crosse in Baptisme contracted into this Syllogisme No humane ordinance becomming an Idoll may lawfully be vsed in the service of God But the signe of the Crosse being an humane ordinance is become an Idoll Ergo The signe of the Crosse may not lawfully bee vsed in the service of God VVherein not only the weaknesse of the Syllogisme it selfe but also of the grounds and proofes thereof are plainely discovered By L. H. Doct. of Divinitie August Serm. 19. de Sanctis Crucifixus noster à morte resurrexit coelos ascendit Crucem nobis in memoriam sua passionis reliquit Idem Serm. 130. De Tempore Câ—â—â— Christi est clavis paradisi insigne regni Printed at Oxford by Ioseph Barnes and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Crowne by Simon Waterson 1605. TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND MOST REVEREND FAther in God RICHARD by the providence of God Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Primate of all England Metropolitane one of his Maiesties most Honorable Privie Councell NOthing makes mee more afraid to offer this mine answere to your Graces view censure then the very length which coÌ„trary to my purpose and conceit it is now growne vnto For both it may iustly argue me of indiscretion for framing so long an answere to so short a Treatise and the longer it is the more must it needs be subiect to diuers and sundry oversights Both which give me iust occasion much the rather to flie to so safe a sanctuary as your Graces patronage not only against them who for the matters sake will certainly mislike it but euen against them also who fauoring the argument may peradueÌ„ture iudge the coat too big for the body or wish somthing otherwise then here they find it May it please your Grace therfore to remember that first this matter of the Crosse in Baptisme is that great stumbling block whereat al our discontented brethren doe take offence secondly that in this small Treatise al the chiefest arguments which they vsually make against this signe are compreheÌ„ded I make no doubt but that both your Grace al other indifferent Readers will easily pardon my length Especially because my endevour was to giue iust satisfaction to euery obiection and to leaue nothing vnanswered that might seeme to carry any waight of reasoÌ„ with it which course as I held throughout the whol Treatise in generall so more especially in the last part Where our obiections which the Treatiser maketh shew to satisfie are iustified to be too waighty for so slight and incoherent answers as are fitted vnto them The Treatiser more ouer not only somwhat in every part of the Treatise but fully and of resolued setled purpose in the last part maketh great vaunt that either the Ancient fathers in their times vsed not this signe at al in Baptisme or if they did they vsed it to far other purposes theÌ„ we do now or lastly if they vsed it to any such end yet euen in them it was neuer free from sinne and superstition I thought it therefore a principall part of my duty somwhat more at large to insist vppon these points being things in my iudgment not slightly to be passed ouer And accordâ—ngly haue declared both that the Ancient fathers vsed this consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme in their times And also that they vsed it though to other purposes too yet even to such ends purposes as our Church doth at this day lastly I haue freed as I trust aswell our Christian vse thereof from suspition oâ—â—â—olatry as that vse which the Auntients had of it from that imputation of sin superstition which vniustly is supposed to haue accoÌ„panied it in their times And this I trust may be sufficient excuse and defense for the prolixity of this answere As for the ouersights and imperfections therin coÌ„tained no iust Apology can be made only I must fly to your Graces fauour good acceptance of the Readers I could haue wished and from my hart I doe desire that the late CoÌ„ference before his most excellent Maiestie so much desired expected before it came might haue had that successe wherof there was hope giuen at the first That is either vtterly haue taken away and made an end of these quarels in our Church or at the least after full satisfaction giuen which there they had somwhat abated the heat of their discontentment That so we all with one hart and one minde might haue prouided ourselues against that head of Popery that by these domesticall dissentions getteth dayly strength among vs. But it is come to passe I knowe not how that these conteÌ„tions are since that time much more rife then they were before prosecuted with greater heate theÌ„ ever As though by that meeting in the conference they had rather taken hart and greater courage then any foile and new strength rather then any iust reprofe or satisfaction Where vppon as diuers others haue endeuoured to answere their exceptions to our Church Ceremonies in generall so I haue laboured to take out of the way all their scrupels and obiections against this particular of the Crosse in Baptisme wherein my conscience beareth me record I haue walked with an vpright hart and sincere affection and I verily thinck according to the truth in this behalfe If therfore there shall be any thing found therin answerable to the worth dignity of the cause all that iustly and properly belongeth only to your Grace from whom it tooke the first begining If otherwise I shal be alwaies ready vpon better information to reforme my errors and ouersight How soeuer I commend both it and my selfe to your Graces honorable fauour and protection and shal be alwaies willing to dispose my labours according to your Graces directioÌ„ studying in althings wherin God shal enableme to aduaÌ„ce the glory of God and knowledge of his truth wherof as God hath made your Grace the greatest ornament and pillar in our Church so I humbly beseech him of his infinite goodnes to blesse all your religious careful endeuours for the same And withal to giue you many honorable daies and comfortable Assistants in so great a worke to the glory of his holy name contentment of his most excellent Maiestie perpetuall good of this Church and congregation Your Graces most bounden and dutifull Chapleine LEON HVTTEN AN ANSWERE TO A TREAtise of the Crosse in Baptisme The Title whereof is A short Treatise of the Crosse in Baptisme contracted into this Syllogisme No humane ordinance becomming an Idoll may lawfullie be vsed in the service of God But the signe of the crosse being a humane ordinance is become an Idoll Ergo The signe of the Crosse may not lawfully be vsed in the service of God This short treatise of the Crosse in Baptisme consisteth of three principall parts 1 The maine syllogisme whereinto
it may iustly be reputed Popish Antichristian though it were before those times wherein Popery and Antichrist were hatched First we doe not thinke that Antiquity alone without reason and truth is cause sufficient why wee shoulde retaine a Ceremony Yet it may giue vs good cause to examine the reasons that moved the fathers to vse it and not without iust cause rashly to abrogate and disanull it Now because our Church by examining those reasons that caused the Fathers to institute vse this Ceremony of the Crosse in Baptisme hath founde that as it vvas then so it may be stil a Ceremony of decencie and profitable admonition in the Church shee hath therefore according to that liberty which in matter of Ceremonie is permitted to every severall Church retained this abrogated some other which in her iudgmeÌ„t seemed both more burdensome lesse profitable These reasons coÌ„curring with antiquity adde the greater weight vnto it as on the other side it addeth also vnto them all of theÌ„ togither yeeld cause very sufficient why some ancient Ceremonies rather be retained then other some And therefore to your first question why doe we not vse other ancient Ceremonies as well as this J answere Because our Church thought them not so necessary nor convenient Shee might no doubt haue still retained them if shee would For J willingly submit my weaker iudgement to that most graue and learned iudgment of Mr. Bucer Bucer in 4. ca ad Ephes De caeteris signis quae in sacris adhibita sunt à veteribus vel hodie adhibentur à multis vt sunt ignis ad exorcismos catechismos alba vestis Baptizatorum sacer panis qui dabatur Catechumenis pleraque alia sic sentio Si quae Ecclesiae essent quae puram Christi tenerent doctrinam et sinceram seruarent disciplinam hisque signis vterentur simpliciter et pure absque omni superstitione vel leuitate praecise ad pias admonitiones easque probe omnibus intellectas eas Ecclesias non possum equidem propter signorum talem vsum condemnare Your two examples of Lactis et mellis concordia and offerings for the dead are auntient Ceremonies indeed in those times had no doubt their very good profitable vse as of the former Tertullian testifieth lib. de coron mil. cap. 3. and of the latter both Mr. Beza Beza de notis Eccles P. Martyr in ca. 7 Judicum Peter Martyr as is recorded before therfore though Tertullian doth establish these the signe of the Crosse with the same warranty of tradition or Ecclesiasticall constitution yet our Church counteth them not so necessary nor so fitt for these latter times The second braunch of your answere is If vpon the Fathers tradition we vse the Crosse then must we receiue and vse it as they haue deliuered it vnto vs that is with opinion of vertue and efficacy Supposing that this opinion of vertue efficacy wherof we shall say more afterwards was euill in the Fathers yet there is no reasoÌ„ why we hauing free liberty to make our choice should be bound to take their euill things with their good as hath bin shewed before out of St. Hierome For he that gaue vs the free commission of omnia probate Pag. 97. restrained vs only to good things in our choice quod bonum est tenete But my affection willing J confesse in nothing rashly to accuse the Auntients leadeth me rather to thinke that eueÌ„ this opinioÌ„ of vertue efficacy that you speake of was no evill thing in them For though they vsed the consignation of the Crosse in those actions that you mentioÌ„ a litle after yet they yeelded no opinioÌ„ of vertue and efficacy to that signe but to the Crosse passion of Christ wherof that signe was an outward token and resemblance And this J hope to make apparant to the indifferent reader in every particular of your accusation First therfore you accuse them for ascribing virtue efficacy to the signe of the Crosse in the Act of blessing themselues in common conversation this you proue out of Tertullians Ad omnem progressum atque promotum c. But what if they by this act of signing theÌ„selues with the signe of the Crosse did not intend blessing of themselues as you tearme it but remembrance of Christes benefits performed for them on the Crosse For so S. Cyrill answereth Iulian the Apostata when hee had called the Christians Cyrill Alexand coner Iulianum lib 6. tom 3. miseros quibus curae esset semper dâ—mos frontes signo pretiosae crucis signare Haec omnia saith hee meaning the benefits of Christs passioÌ„ which he had recited before recordari nos facit salutare lignum 2. Cor. 5.15 suadet ut cogitemus quòd sicut dicit diuinus Paulus vnus pro omnibus mortuus est vt viventes non vltrà sibijpsis vivaÌ„t sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est resurrexit And a little after pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriaÌ„ omnis boni omnis virtutis What if they ascribed not this vvhich you call blessing to the signe of the Crosse but to Christs passion represented and remembred vnto them by this signe for so M. Perkins teacheth you to thinke of them Crux apud veteres non significat ipsum signuÌ„ crucis Perkins demoÌ„st prob cap. de signo crucis sed per Metonymiam passionem crucifixi To which purpose he expoundeth Constantines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Deo non signo and citeth an authoritie of Chrysostome Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 55. Crucem non simpliciter digito in corpore sed magna profecto fide in mente formare oportet And aftervvards concludeth all that hee had saide before with this most excellent rule how the Fathers are to be vnderstood wheÌ„ they attribute any thing to this signe Omnia dicta Patrum saith he vbi cruceÌ„ spem redemptionem ac saluteÌ„ c esse volunt intelligenda esse relatiuè vt referantur ad passionem Christi vel ad ipsum crucifixum signo crucis representatum So that not only the Fathers reposed no such vertue and efficacy in the signe but also if any man should vse it now which yet J will not commend vnto any man by reason of the scandall it may bring with it J hold that iudgement of Hemingius very sound Hemin in 1 ep Ioan. cap. 5. Qui manè surgens et vesperi cubitum vadens signat se cruce in signum militiae Christianae non est culpandus modo absit superstitio SecoÌ„dly you accuse them for ascribing vertue and efficacy to the signe of the Crosse in expelling and chasing away of Deuils for proofe whereof you cite Hierome ad Demetriadem Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 17. Zanch. de redemp l. 1. p. 366 and Chrysostome in Psal 109. All these autorities J easily grant to be true and
ignoranc vtterly to reiect the vse of all humane learning in their sermōs yet J hold it not therfore vnlawfull And sure J am that Ambrosius delect andi gratiâ vtitur sententiarum argutijs Hieronymus poetarum illecebris et Mimorum salibus Tertullianus facetijs et iocis Chrysostomus similibus collationibus et metaphoris ad illustrationem et delectationem admirabili artificio concinnatis as a learned man speaketh of those fathers And Saint Augustine a greater clarke then any they can set against him is of opinion that a De doctr christian lib. 2. c. 4. Si qua forte vera fidei nostrae accommoda dixerunt non solum formidanda non sunt sed abijs etiam tanquā iniustis possessoribus in vsum nostrum vendicanda now if a man vpon these grounds should inferre that therefore all humane ordinances inventions are not excluded from the service of God I marvaile what our Treatiser woulde thinke of his vniversal negatiue proposition Secondly if by the service of God he vnderstande the Leiturgie and forme of divine service and praier then I demaunde what manner of Leiturgie there was in the Church of the Jewes till the time of our Saviour For wee are not to imagine that in their dayly sacrifices in their Sabbaths and new moones other festival daies men assembled only to performe the bare outward actions of killing their sacrifices and offring their oblations without any forme of praier and Leiturgie for such holy purposes And yet those outward actions only are recorded and registred vnto vs as being of Gods institution and those other of praier and thanksgiving vocall service of the congregation if any such were as certainely they were are passed over in silence without any record or remembrance which makes me to conceaue and verily I shal remaine in that opinion til I be reformed that al other complements were wholy left permitted to the direction of the Priests For had there been any such formes of praier and thanksgiuing instituted by God they would noe doubt ether haue beene recorded by Moses aswell as there forme of blessing the people mētioned Numb 6.24 or preserued as safe as the other Ceremonies and rites of there sacrifices And herein J am the rather confirmed by the Titles and Inscriptions of divers psalmes which in the times of those oblations sacrifices were vsed in holy meetings But the whole manner of ordering and disposing of them seemeth to haue beene in the Priests and Leuites and them that had the chiefe gouernment in holy assemblies For so much both the sending of diuers psalmes to the Chaunter or him that excelled in musicke as Ieduthune Asaph the sonns of Corah and the names of certaine Jnstruments or tunes whereto they were to be set as Neginoth Shoshannim Alamoth and such like doe most manifestly import Also I would faine know of the Treatiser whether the appointing of the Singers Priests and Levites in their orders and courses which is ascribed to Dauid 1 Chron. 25. to It hoida 2. Chro. 23.18 to Ezechias 2. chron 31.2 were a humane ordinance or noe for that it was vsed in Gods seruice these alledged places sufficiently testifie and that it was a humane ordinance instituted first by Dauid and renewed afterward by those others these places following plainly affirme The song of the Lord began with the trumpets instruments of David King of Jsraell 2. Chron 29.27 Ezechias the King and Princes commaunded the Levites to praise the Lord with the words of David and Asaph the kings seer 2. Chron. 29.30 and after the captivitie Ioshua the Priest and Zerubbabell the governour appointed the Priests in their apparel with trumpets the Levites the sonnes of Asaph with Cymbals to praise the Lord after the ordinance of Dauid King of Israel Esra 3.10 Thirdly if by the seruice of God he meane the outward ceremonies of our religious carriage and behavior while we are in the Church hearing Gods word and praying vnto him in the congregation I woulde knowe whether those ordinances which the Apostle S. Paul prescribeth That women should keepe silence in the Church 1. Cor. 14.34 That men should pray bare headed and women couered 1. Cor. 11.4 That men comming togither to the Lords supper should stay one for another and that prophane feasting should not be mingled with the Lordes Supper 1. Corinth 11.17 whether J saie these and many such like were of humane institution or diuine Jf they were of mans ordināce then the Treatiser is much mistaken for al these belonged to the service of God if they were not of humane but diuine institution how then doth he cal them My things The ordinances that I haue deliuered 1. Cor 11.2 and why speakes he not in Gods person but his owne I will that men pray euery where lifting vp pure hands That women array themselues in comely apparel 1. Tim 2.8.9 and I permit not a woman to teach 1. Tim. 2.12 Jf the Treatiser shal say that in al these examples formerly alleadged those men were ledde by the spirit of God therfore what soeuer they appointed was Gods ordinance my answere there vnto is that now also the Church of God is guided by the same spirit and as now so even then also there was a difference to be made betweene those things which God commanded in such actions those things which were ordered by men else the scripture would neither so expresly haue mentioned such thinges to haue bin done by such men as in the former examples nor St. Paule haue spoken in his own person soe resolutely as in the latter A manifest proofe wherof we may drawe out of the same Apostle speaking of a matter of greater importāce namely marriage 1. Cor 7. where he would not haue acknowledged that some thing he spake by permission and some other things by Commandement as in the 6. verse nor haue so exactly distinguished between the Lord commandeth not I speaking of equal marriages verse 10. and I commande and not the Lord speaking of vnequal marriages verse 12. But onely to giue vs to vnderstand that in these matters of ceremony and outward order where he vseth not Gods expresse authoritie there he speaketh of his owne iudgment directed alwaies as him selfe veryly thinketh 1. Cor. 7.40 by the spirit of God Hitherto J haue spoken only of those things wherin I wold willingly be instructed concerning the Leiturgies of the old testamēt til the Apostles times Now if I should resume the same points discourse of them as J finde them to haue been vsed in the Primitiue Church immediate ages next after the Apostles I should presse the Treatiser with such a multitude of examples aboue al exception as must needs ouerthrow his weake position For first for sermons both in there preachings and in there writings how ful of humane arts and secular learning are the auncient holy fathers For although in the end and scope of there learning
the custome of there Coūtry was otherwise or because they had seene things otherwise carried in some places where they had trauailed and therfore thought best of that which they had learned furthest from home Nowe out of these premisses we may gather this firme and sure Conclusion That therfore the Ceremonies of those times were certainely of humane ordinance or to speake more properly of Ecclesiasticall Constitution For had God given any law cōcerning thē neither could the Jewish rites haue cōtinued so long neither could they haue bin so divers as they were neither could they haue bin of so free obseruation but that one church must needs haue bin scādalized by another And although this were sufficient to infring the Treatisers proposition yet I will giue the Reader a little taste of those things only which antiquity hath alvvaies commended in this kinde that he may thereby be induced to thinke the more reverently of Church Ceremonies The translation therefore of the Sabbath into the Lords day and that men praied with their faces towards the East of whose ordinance and institution were they Of the first St. Augustine plainely affirmeth Aug. de Tem. Serm. 25. Apostoli Apostolici viri sancti Doctores Ecclesiae decreverunt omnem gloriam Iudaici sabbatismi in illam transferre The second also is very ancient as Iustine Martyr witnesseth referring it to the Apostles Respon ad orthodox qu. 118. A quibus morem orandi accipit Ecclesia ab ijsdem etiam locum accepit viz. à sanctis Apostolis In like manner we read that our Lord and Saviour instituted his supper in the Evening Mat. 26. and after meate Cum autem illi manducarent accepit Iesus panem c. From whence then is it that now for sixe hundred years it is receaved in the morning before men eate For the former St. Augustine saith Aug. ep 118. ad Januarium Saluator quo vehemētiùs commendaret mysterij illius altitudinem vltimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus memoriae discipulorum à quibus ad passionem digressurus erat Et ideo non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur vt Apostolis per quos Ecclesias dispositurus erat servaret hunc locum For the latter hee demandeth Nunquid propterea calumniandum est vniversae Ecclesiae quod à ieiunis semper accipitur ex hoc enim placuit spiritui Sancto vt in honorem tanti sacramenti in os Christiani prius Dominicum corpus intraret quà m exteri cibi This custome was in vse therefore every where in his time except only in some few parts of Egypt in the cuntries neere vnto Alexandria and Thebais as Socrates observeth Quos probabilis quaedam ratio delectavit c. as S. Augustine speaketh in the same Epistle It was afterwardes commanded in the third provincial councell of Carthage Aug. ad Jan. ep 119. cap. 15. Tertull de coron mill cap. 2. Can. 29. and lastly confirmed by the sixt general councel in Trullo The like may be said of the Jnstitutiō of Holly daies of Lent of kneeling in the time of publike praier vsed all the yeare long saue only on Sundaies and Pentecost on which daies the custome was Iust Mart. respon ad orthod qu. 115. orare stantes to stand while they praied for such like reasons peradvēture as Iustine Martyr yeelds for it Lastly those ceremonies in praier mentioned by Chrysostome Chrysost in illa verba veri adoratores in sp ver adorabunt Cum manus extendis pectus tundis faciem in coelum erigis oculos aperis quid aliud facis quam vt totum hominem ostendas Deo And those other spokē of by Tertulliā Illuc Tertull. Apol. ca 30. contra Judaeos cap. 10. idest in coelum suspicientes manibus expansis capite nudo genibus positis manibus caedentibus pectus facie humi volutata As also that they stood vp at the reading of the Gospels kneeled at the Sacrament what other groūd had they then humane Institution And I trust that that ceremony of virorum prior Bez. ep 24. ad ◠foeminarū posterior ad mensam accubitus and all those others which our newe reformers would haue brought in either in their standing or sitting or walking at the Communion if they mighte haue prevailed in their generall proiects of a forme of Church Leiturgie and of a Church discipline so often tendred to the Parliament would in short time haue proved no better then humane devises and inuentions though neuer so fayrely coloured with the names of Apostolicall customes and honored with the most glorious titles of The most holy Discipline the scepter of Christ and full placing of him in his kingdome Concerning the second that nothinge becōming an Idoll may lawfully be vsed in the seruice of God Before I come to answere the proposition J desire the Reader a litle to obserue the Treatisers phrase and manner of speech His phrase is becomming an Idoll will you know the reason Hee had not spoken home enough if hee had only said being abused for the word abused would haue implied a good vse once which the Treatiser perhaps will not admit that there was ever any of the Crosse Neither thought he it sufficient to say abused to Idolatrie for then perhaps it would haue been too hard a taske for him to proue that nothing abused to Idolatrie may lawfully be vsed in Gods service And therefore there was no remedy his phrase must needs be becomming an Idoll But how I praie you may a humane ordinance become an Idoll Doe you intende by this speech a Metamorphosis or Transubstantiation whereby it ceaseth to be the nature it was and is turned into a nature it vvas not But that is cleane against the Apostles minde who saith that Idolum nihil est in mundo 1. Cor. 8.4 Your meaning then must bee that by the cogitation and minde of men ascribing deity to the ordinance it was framed and made an Idol For other essence and becomming it can haue none What then needed this far fetched speech becomming an Idoll But that perhaps you meant thereby to expresse your zeale or rather as I suppose to astonish the ignorant make the signe of the Crosse more suspected and odious to the people But leauing the Treatisers speech let vs come vnto his matter And here J must debate a litle with the Treatiser whether the matter of an Idoll for the forme we see by the Apostles doctrine is none but only in the minde and cogitation of the Jdolater whether J say the matter of an Idoll being siluer or golde brasse leade or stone c. after it is altered reclaymed from the Jdolatrous vse may not aswell be vsed in Gods seruice as Churches or Lands or vessels may which sometimes haue beene consecrated vnto Jdols J am of opinion it may For as Tertullian speaketh Apol. cap. 12. 13. De simulachris ipsis nihil aliud
should be vsed Religionis ergô and in the worshipping of God seemeth directly against St. Iohns precept for how do I keepe my selfe from the Idoll or how do I shew my zealous detestatioÌ„ of that filthy Idolatry when I retaine it vse it so honorably as in the Temple in the Sanctuary in the seruice of God VVhich interpretation of this place of St. Iohn the Church of England doth on the warrant of Tertullian approue commend Answere In the explanatioÌ„ of the first point what is meant by an Idoll I see not any great matter to be dissented in from the Treatiser only J perceaue not how by any of these descriptions the Crosse may bee made an Idoll neither in the explanation of his second point howe wee are to keepe our selues from the Idoll is any thing greatly to bee reproved so long as hee speaketh of keeping our selues a cultu Idoli from the worshippe of the Jdoll only J must tel him that those words which he citeth out of St. Augustines words vpon the 113. Psalme vt caueant non tantum c either are not St. Augustines vpon that Psalme or else my booke and his do disagree For J haue diligently fought for them al that Psalme ouer but cannot finde them which J do not obserue as if J tooke exception against the Treatiser for facilis est error a man may easely misse in a quotation or against the words them selues let them be St. Augustines or the Treatisers or any other mans and let them forbidd both the worshipp vse of Idols as much as they can we mislike both the one and the other as highly as the Treatiser him selfe doth The things that in this section I take exception vnto are in those points he deliuereth de vsu Idoli as 1 These words That an Image even such an Image as is Idolatrously worshipped may be made and retained for civill respects of ornament and such like there is no question though the tolerating of them in open and publike places even extra cultum be offensiue turne into a snare c. The first part That they may bee made and retained for civill respects of ornament or such like we easily grant but those other words Though the tolerating of them bee offensiue turne into a snare sound harsh in mine eares not only because they containe a flat contradictioÌ„ to the Treatisers owne words a little after where he saith that without doubt the meaning of the second commandement is to binde the Church from al such snares and allurements to sin and that al occasions meanes leading thervnto are likewise prohibited but especially because they containe a contradiction to the truth For what els gaue occasion to Jdolatry at the first but the vaine glory of men making statues and portracts of their triumphes and for the memory of them whom they loued Which at the first were civill respects but when they came to bee a snare were no better then Jdols Had the Treatiser well observed the nature of the words which he here deliuereth he would haue found that nothing is Scandalum offensiue or a stumbling blocke til it bee set to make men stumble nor a snare till it be laid to catch and intangle Such things are no longer tollerated then while they retaine their civil respects if once they become offensiue and snares Isa 57.14 then God commaundeth presently Cast vp cast vp prepare the way take vp the stumbling blockes out of the way of my people Againe if this speech of the Treatisers be true as hee maks no questioÌ„ what reason hath he to be more friendly to an Jmage even such an image as is Jdolatrously worshipped though c. then to our Crosse in Baptism which is neither an image nor Idolatrously worshipped nor retained cum opinione cultus nor offensiue or a snare to any but such as wil be offended without cause Jf either I in this answere or any other of the conformable Cleargie should suffer this or such a like speech to fal from vs we straightway should be reckoned Antichristian and Popish and favourers of Jdolatry but our Treatiser his friends may say what they wil and yet alwaies bee commended The next words immediatly following are as lavish as the former Vpon this ground wee yeelde that though the Crosse bee apparantly an Idoll yet in Princes Banners c. First your ground is weake as euen now we declared then if the Crosse be apparantly an Idoll neither Princes Banners nor Crowne nor Coine nor any other civill respect can make it haue a lawfull vse Your perpetual arguing from secundum quid ad simpliciter doth bewray an exceeding desire to deceiue both others and your selfe For be it granted that the Crosse is an Jdoll secunduÌ„ quid that is according to the vse of the Church of Rome will you thence conclude simplicitèr that therfore the Crosse among whom and wheresoever and vsed howsoeuer is apparantly simplie an Jdoll who seeth not the childishnesse of this caption 3 The third speech argueth the Treatiser to bee both iniurious and maâ—tious Jniurious in that he saith that the Crosse a thing of mans devising being worshipped as an Jdoll is vsed by vs in the worship of God for neither vse we that thing which is worshipped as an Jdoll because there is nothing like between our Crosse their Crosse but the name only as is before declared in the answere to the minor neither do we vse the Crosse as a thing to worship God thereby but only as a thing to put vs in remembrance of our duty Malitious in that he saith it is vsed by vs Religionis ergô for Religionis ergô in this place is the same phrase with Religionis causae afterwards And in my vnderstanding is properly Englished for the Religions sake or because of the Religion that we suppose to bee in it and therefore the Treatiser doth but double and dissemble when he translateth Religionis ergô to retaine it and vse it so honorably as in the Temple in the Sanctuary in the service of God For out of what Authors can he shew that to vse a thing Religionis ergô signifieth to vse a thing in the outward seruice of God the Treatiser knows well enough that these speaches differ beare not the same meaning and yet is content to fasten vpoÌ„ vs that we vse the Crosse Religionis ergô which is a most malitious calumniation And J must tel him the more plainly of this iuggling because he vseth it very much and thinks it a fit bait to catch the simple True it is we vse the signe of the Crosse in a religious action namely in Baptisme but we vse it not Religionis ergô with anie conceipt or opinion of Religion that we ascribe vnto it and this I giue the Reader as a perpetual caveat against the grand imposture of the Treatiser Jn vaine therfore is that which he addeth of the Church of England approving
commending of Tertullians interpretation of this place of Iohn worthely it is approved and commended as most fit and agreeable therevnto Tertullian never meant those words against the sign of the Crosse in Baptisme of which he alwaies speaketh most honorably neither doth the Church of England in that Homilie otherwise apply his testimony then to the detestation both of the service or worshipping and also of the very shapes and likenes of the Images or Idols them selues his wordes there are effigies imago as the same Homily doth well obserue Our Crosse is neither of them both Treatise 3. Sect. And this point is further strengthened by the seconde commandement which forbiddeth not only to worship but euen to make an Image or any similitude whatsoever to wit ad cultū or for religious vse as according to the scripture the best interpreters partly against Images in Churches partly on the words of the precept do most naturally expoūd it For surely if Idolatry it selfe as a most execrable thing be forbidden then all occasions meanes leading thervnto are likewise prohibited what stronger provocation to that spiritual whoredome thē erecting Images in the place of Gods worship Plus enim vt rectè Augustinus in Psalm 113. valent simulacra ad curuandam infeliccm animam quòd os habent nares habent manus habent pedes habent quà m ad corrigendam quòd non loquentur nō videbunt non audient non odorabunt non tractabunt nō ambulabunt And therefore without doubt the meaning of the commandement is to binde the Church from all such snares allurements to sin And therfore doth Augustine in quaest super Leu. q. 68. wel conclude from this cōmandement that such making of an Idoll can never be iust or lawfull Now if no similitude at all be tollerable in Gods service then much lesse any that hath beene and is worshipped Idolatrouslie Tertullian against the Gnosticks accompted them Idolaters not only which worshipped but those also vvhich made and retained Images nempe ad cultum or for holie vse and in his booke de Idololatria hee vehemently reproveth the very makers of Images though they did not themselues worship thē which sheweth in what execration the Primitiue Churche held any religious vse of an Idoll The like we may finde in Epiphanius ad Johannem Episcopum Hierosol where he reporteth that finding an Image of Christ or some Saint hanging at a Church dore he rent it in peeces avouching that to hange a picture in the Church of Christ was contra autoritatem scripturarum contra religionem Christianam contrary to the authority of the scriptures and the Christian Religion Frō hence I conclude that if the godly fathers were so vehemēt against the erecting of the Images of Christ of Saints euen at that time before any worship was giuen vnto them Much more would they withstand it now after men haue made Idolls of them And if they would not suffer an Idoll so much as in the place of Gods worship would they endure themselues to vse such an Idoll as the Crosse in the seruice and sacramentes of God Their zeale against that spirituall fornication would neuer permitt them so highly to honor such an execrable thing neither was their zeale herein without ground of knowledge for the spirit of God in Psal 115.8 speaking of Idolls They saith he that make them are like vnto them and so are all they that trust in them VVhere a plaine difference is made betwene makers and worshippers of Idolls and both condemned as Cursed transgressors of the Law Shall any then make the Idoll of the Crosse that Religionis causa and yet be innocent Questionlesse by Dauids example we must make no mētion that is keep no honorable memory of an Idoll therfore without doubt not giue it so much honor as to vse it or the memoriall therof in the house of God in his holy worship Isa 50.22 but as Isai saith we must pollute the reliques the very couering and ornament of the Idoll and cast thē away as a menstruous cloth say vnto it get thee hence Answere The Treatiser confirmes his explanation of the sentence of St. Iohn by the second Commandement by the testimonies of S. Augustine Tertulliā Epiphanius thervnto applied Wherin giuing way to his allegatiōs because they are only against Jdolatry and making of Jmages to worship them J only marke his scapes and overreachings wherof the first is in these words Ad cultum or for Religious vse where J note that how soeuer in words he would faine make Cultus and religious vse differēt things that so he might seeme to follow his proposed diuision de cultu et vsu yet in his proofes he makes them both one A manifest argument that in all this discourse he neuer commeth nere our vse of the Crosse in Baptisme which is so farre from Cultus and religious vse as he vnderstands it that we neither worship it nor suppose any religon to be in it as J said even now A second scape of his is in this conditionall Collection vpon the second Commandement and testiōnies of St. Augustine If no similitude at all be tolerable in Gods seruice then much lesse any that hath bin and is worshiped Idolatrously For wheras the second Commandement all his proofes there vpon run mainly against Cultus or religious vse which to him are both one he cānot thēce cōclude that therfore the vse of some similitudes in a religious action without any worship ascribed vnto them or opinion of religion reposed in them is not tollerable For by this generall restraint beyond the nature of his proofes he may as well exclude the vse of Sacramēts out of Gods seruice which certainly are some kind of similitudes of those things which they doe represent according to that of St. Augustine Aug. ep 23. ad Bonifacium Si sacramēta quandam similitudinem earū rerum quarum sunt sacramenta non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent Againe his illation and inference vpon this supposition is likewise false for though that were true yet some thing that hath bin heretofore Idolatrously worshiped may lawfully be tollerated now and some thing that even now is Idolatrously worshiped which yet is not granted of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme as shall hereafter appeare may be lawfully tollerated in some other that are free from all conceite of Jdolatrie as formerly hath bin declared Thirdly hee over-reacheth in his collection vpon the words of Tertullian and Epiphanius where hee asketh woulde they endure themselues to vse such an Jdoll as the Crosse in the service and sacraments of God We answer they would such an Jdoll as our Crosse is And we are perswaded that both they St. Augustine too would like it wel enough When they shoulde perceiue that without opinion of superstition or efficacie ascribed vnto it it were reclaimed to the very same symbolicall or ceremoniall vse it
them the right vse or by Lawes prohibiting the Jdolatry or by punishments either penall or capitall vpon the transgressors of the lawes established or by removing the thing if it be a materiall thing as this was out of the places of resort into some secluse place vvhere the people might neither come at it nor see it and where without offence it might still be kept for a monument of Gods mercy or lastly if nothing else wil serue by vtter abolishing and destroying the thing Nowe because of all these waies hee made choice of that which he iudged and which was indeed the most expedite and ready way and withal the surest that Idolatry might never be cōmitted to it againe Aug. de civit Dei lib. 10. c. 8. Religiosâ potestate Deo serviens cum magna pietatis laude contrivit doing God service with his religious authority he brake it and is worthily commended for his piety If it had seemed good in his iudgement to haue taken some of the other courses as it is likely David Asa Iehosophat and other good kings of Iuda before him did his cōmendations as theirs had bin no whit lesse though his reformatiō had neither bin so expedite nor so sure for time to come for which cause also that great famous execution which K. Henrie the eight did vpon the Monestaries of this Land is likewise commended yet manie both zealous and religious professors could rather haue wished that so many famous Monuments erected sometime to the service of God but then abused by the wicked and sinfull inhabitants might stil haue retained the end and punishment haue lighted only on the offenders Yea but you will say where the abuses could not otherwise be redressed but had it remained stil vnbroken it would stil haue bin a stumbling blocke and occasion of Idolatry there the readiest and surest way was to be takē J grant where the abuse could not otherwise be redressed as in the brasen Serpent c. but where the abuse may otherwise be redressed as in the signe of the Crosse there destruction vtter subuersion is not alwaies the best cure And herein plainely is the difference betweene the brasen Serpent and the Crosse Hezechiah saw the abuse of the Serpent 2 King 18.4 otherwise incureable for vnto those daies saith the scripture the children of Jsrael did burne incense vnto it vnto those daies importeth a long time before and an inevitable abuse that had long continued wherein as we are in al good reason to conceiue the former godly kings David Asa and Iehosophat who are greatly commēded for their reformations had no doubt made triall of al other meanes and yet experience made proofe that by al those it could not be redressed In which case Hezechiahs course was necessary and hoc supposito the rule of Pope Stephen holdeth Dist 63. cap. Quia Sancta Per hoc magna autoritas ista est habenda in Ecclesia vt si no anulli ex praedecessoribus maioribus nostris fecerunt aliqua quae illo tempore potuerunt esse sine culpa posteà vertuntur in errorē superstitionem sine tarditate aliqua cum magna autoritate à posteris destruantur For this cause this authority is to be esteemed great in the Church that if some of our predecessors ancestors haue done somthings which at that time might be without fault and afterwards are turned into error and superstition they may be destroied by posteritie without al lingring and with great authority Our Church contrarywise perceiveth by the fruitfull experience now of almost fifty yeares that the abuse of the cōsignatiō of the Crosse in Baptisme is cureable where obedient and conformable Teachers instruct the people a right it seemeth further that this abuse wold haue bin much more redressed before these daies had not the Treatiser and his complices hindered the worke by their vntrue slanders and accusations both of our Church as retaining the reliques of Popery and of the thing as if it were the marke of the beast framed in the forge of Antichrist which they know to haue bin a decent Ceremony vsed in the purest age and by the greatest pillars of the Church long before any shew of Antichrist did appear Againe J answere that it is by the Magistrates to bee considered First wherin the abuse doth more principally reside whether in the persons that do abuse the thing or in the thing that is abused For reason would generally that as by the skilfull Physitian cures are applied to those parts that are most affected so by the discreet Magistrate the redresse should be made there where the abuse principally consisteth Jf in the persons the easines or difficulty of reforming them is diligently to be respected Jf in the thing that is abused the Magistrate is likewise to consider of what nature the thing is If evill of his owne nature and first institution as Lupanaria the Stews and such like places be then without al questiō their best redresse is their vtter subversion and destruction Jf good of his owne nature first institution but abused by mē as both the brasen Serpent the sign of the Crosse were Then the consideratiō is whether the thing thus abused be such as may wel be spared or such as cannot wel bee spared Jf so then it is apparantly the readier and easier way to take away the thing If otherwise then the wisdō of the Magistrate wil direct him rather to take away the abuse then destroy the thing These cōsiderations in the matter of the brasen Serpēt made good king Hezechiah to finde that the brasen Serpēt was for one peculiar time occasion that it had long before his daies performed that service for which it was erected that it belonged not to the people of his time nor had no such cure as before to effect That though the Serpent were a type of the Messiah yet there remained a memory of it in the bookes of Moses that would serue that turne though this were taken away Lastly that it was all one these things considered whether it were preserved still or vtterly abolished vpon which grounds he proceeded to that so much cōmended execution brake it in peeces and called it Nehushtan The same deliberations likewise in our reformers in the matter of the Crosse made them to find that the consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme was not more peculiar to the times of the Primitiue Church then to ours That it had not performed all that service for the which it was first instituted That it is an admonisher as necessary now against Atheists Mockers and Blasphemers as it was at the first against heathen and Pagan Idolators That if it were taken away the Church of Rome might iustly accuse vs of abrogating an harmelesse innocent institution Non temere nec subinde nec levibus de causis ad novationem est decurrē dum Calv. Inst lib 4 cap.
tenete c. That we choose their good things 1. Thess 1. 21. and avoid the cōtrary according to the Apostles saying Try al things keepe that which is good For they which are carried away either with too much loue or with too much hatred of him by the distemper of their stomacke seeme vnto me to be vnder that curse of the Prophet woe be vnto them that call good euill and evil good Isai 5.20 that make sower sweete and sweete sower But Cyprian Augustine Chrysostome and others did consecrate the Elements you say with the signe of the Crosse which we doe not They did indeed and in those times they did it wel Jf we should now doe the like we could not choose but doe very ill That they did wel in so doing J am the rather perswaded for my part For J am not willing to conceiue any thing amisse of those blessed and excellent instruments of Gods glory that by any reasonable construction of their words may be salued because they did it without offence in respect of others and without opinion of vertue ascribed to the signe of the Crosse if you respect their owne iudgments without offence to others for at that time the Jnstitutiō of that Ceremony the reasons of the Jnstitution were so wel knowne vnto al men that no man could be ignorant of them nor take offence at them without opinion of vertue in the signe in their owne iudgments Because that consecration or sanctification which they attributed to the signe of the Crosse was rather in name so called then any hallowing indeed and rather an outward declaration that the Elements were consecrated then any cause of their consecration And that this was their conceit of the signe of the Crosse is most manifestly apparant by those words of St. Augustine Aug. de peccat meritis remiss lib. 2. c. 26. Sanctificatio Cathechumeni si non fuerit baptizatus non sibi valet ad intrandū regnum coelorū aut ad remissionē peccatorū Againe they did not ascribe that consecratiō of the elements how little soever they thought it to be vnto the sign of the Crosse which they made vppon it but alwaies with the signe ioined somthing els So the same St. Augustine in that place whē he saith Cathechumenos secundum quendam modum suū puto consecrarï per signum Christi doth not rest there say only Cyp. de passion dom cap. 11. Sect. 12. Signū Christi but ioineth thereunto et orationem manus impositionis and so St. Cyprian whose testimony you cite afterwards saith indeed Operationis autoritas in figura crucis omnibus sacramentis largitur effectum but withal he addeth which you thought wisdome to suppresse as not making for your purpose cuncta peragat Nomen quod omnibus nominibus eminet a sacramentorum vicarijs invocatum But of this we shal say more in the 12. section That we should doe very ill if we should vse this Ceremony now these reasons induce me to cōceiue First The people are now more prone to error and misconceit then they were in those times Secōdly some things and among others this were more fit for those times then for these Goulart in sy prian Epist 56. ad Thibaritan Distinguenda sunt tempora saith Goulartius and before him St. Augustine and then it wil easily appear that that may be done wel at one time which cannot be done wel at another Aug. epist 5. ad Marcellinum Mutat â quippe temporis causa quod rectè ante factum fuerit ita mutari vera ratio plerumque flagitat vt cum aliqui dicant non recte fieri simutetur contra veritas clamet rectè non fieri nisi muteturiquia vtrumque tum erit rectum sierit pro temporū varietate diuersum As in a child many things are permited by the Parents which wil not be when he is come to riper yeares So in that infancy and innocency of the Church many things might wel be done by the Auntients which cannot be wel done by vs now in the māhood or rather old age of the Church And lawful it was for them while Christianity was yet but greene to be led and brought on by those outward rudiments which we haue no neede of now If you aske why these reasons should not aswel make against the signing of the Childe in the forehead as against the signing of the Elements The answere is easie first the danger is not so great nor so remedilesse in the one as in the other Secondly the ends are different The signing of the Childs forhead was then and is now for admonition The signing of the Elements was thē dangerous and would now be desperat for consecration if we should imbrace it And therfore me thinks you should rather commend the wisdom of our Church which out of the nūber of those Ceremonies which were troublesome to good consciences and burdensome to the Church as that learned Bishop speaketh Iuell in Apolog. hath culled those which were harmelesse then any way dislike vs for not retaining all those ceremonies of this signe which though vsed by the Ancients might proue scandalous to the weaker sort For answere to the Second That we doe that which the Ancients did not for they did not crosse the childes forehead at all but referred that vnto the Bishops confirmation I make no doubt but the Treatiser by the Ancients that he speaketh of entēdeth those especially that were nearest vnto the Apostles times that flourished within the compasse of the first three hundred yeares vvhich by al men is reputed the purest age as it were the maidenhead and virginity of the Church For he cannot be ignorant that in the ages that succeeded after them this custome was most ordinary frequent in all Churches This supposed I answere First That either the Treatiser is deceived or the whole Christiā world for so many ages togither hath bin very greatly overseene that ever since the first times even from such as lived with the Apostles thēselues haue receaved this consignatiō of the childs forehead in Baptisme as one of the most ancient Ceremonies of christianity This is acknowledged not only by our best late writers whose speeches to that purpose I haue reported before in the 88. and 89. pages but also by the Ancients out of whō they learned it whose authorities come now to be considered So that if the Treatiser can reforme this common errour of so many learned men and of so long continuance he shal do no doubt a good work a great service to the Church of Christ This hee cannot bring about except hee either deny the authorities of the Ancients or giue their words some other interpretation then they doe apparantly signifie al men hitherto haue made of them Dionysius lib. Eccles Hierar cap. 4. 5. Dionisius commonly called Areopagita whether truly or falsly J wil not discusse but certainly a very
ancient writer maketh often mention of signing the party that is baptised with the sign of the Crosse And to expresse that he meaneth the Crosse in Baptisme he calleth the Sacrament of Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the SacrameÌ„t or seale hauing the forme of a Crosse And describing the maÌ„ner how it was done he saith Imponit minister eius capiti manum coÌ„signansque illum sacerdotibus maÌ„dat virum susceptoremque describant This authority must needs be vnderstood of Baptisme which he there descrâ—beth calling it Sacramentum illuminationis and can by no interpretation be referred either to the Element as is manifest by the words Imponit eius capiti manum consignansque illum nor to the Bishopps confirmation The like is to be thought of that place of Iustin Martyr who florished about the yeare of Christ 140. Just Mart. resp ad orth q. 118. Dextrâ manu in nomine Christi consignamus eos qui hoc signo egent where first al men vnderstand him to meane the consignation of the Crosse Secondly that he cannot meane it of confirmation it is more then probable because hee mentioneth only dexteram manum whereas confirmatioÌ„ requireth imposition of both vt adumbratio septiformis gratiae melius significaretur that the acumbration of the seauen-fold grace might thereby be the better signified Thirdly it cannot be vnderstoode of the Element of Baptisme for his wordes are consignamus c. qui hoc signo egent importing the persons and not the Element Neither lastly can it be referred to that vse of the Crosse which they obserue in actions of common life because in that euery man did signe him selfe but in this he speaketh of such as were signed by other men The next that J will remember after him is Origen for Tertullians testimony because the Treatiser alleadgeth it against vs shal be coÌ„sidered afterwards who liued in the same age with Tertullian though somwhat after him about the yeare of our Lord 220. his words are these Origen Homil. 2. in Psal 38. Tom. 1. Vt non exprobremur ab insipiente coÌ„vertamus nos ab omnibus iniquitatibus nostris ne deprehendens in nobis maculas peccatorum id est suae voluntatis insignia exprobret et dicat ecce hic Christianus dicebatur et signo hristi signabatur in fronte meas autem voluntates et meachirographa gerebat in corde Ecce iste qui mihi et operibus meis renunciavit in Baptismo meis rursuÌ„ operibus se inseruit meisque legibus paruit This is an evident testimony against the Treatiser mentioning both Baptisme and the signe of the Crosse and the forehead wheron it was signed From Origen J come to St. Cyprian who was famous in the Church about the yeare 250. whose testimonies against the Treatisers assertion as J wil not take vpoÌ„ me to repeate theÌ„ al for they are very many so it caÌ„not be either misliked or suspected if Jacquaint the reader with some few especially seeing the Treatiser himselfe doeth acknowledge Cyprian to be the first Sect. 12. Cyprian de vnit Eccl. ca. 16. that maketh mention of the Crosse in Baptism Jn his treatise de vnitate Ecclesiae he hath these words Ozias Rex leprae varietate in fronte maculatus est caparte corporis notatus offenso Domino vbi signantur qui dominum promerentur Againe to Demetrian Proconsull of Africke Ad Demet. ca. 19. he speaketh thus Evadere eos solos posse quirenati signo Christi signati fuerint Cap. 22. and a little after Hunc Christum si fieri potest sequamur omnes huius sacramento signo consecremur In all which places Cap. 7. as also in his fifty sixt Epistle ad Thibaritanos Cap. 22. and his third booke Testimon ad Quirinum not only Pamelius who may seeme somewhat partial for the Crosse but Goulartius also whom the Treatiser cannot suspect doe acknowledge that he speaketh of the Crosse in Baptisme Lactantius that lived after Cyprian about some 50. yeares and flourished in the beginning of the yeare 300 speaketh much to the same purpose Extendit Christus in passione manus suas De vera sapien lib. 4 cap. 26. orbemque dimensus est ut iam tum osteÌ„deret ab ortu solis vsque ad occasum magnum populum ex omnibus linguis tribubus congregatuÌ„ sub alas suas esse venturum signumque illud maximum atque sublime in frontibus suis suscepturum After Lactantius liued St. Basil the great in the Church of Caesarea Cappadociae in the yeare 370. or there abouts who rehearsing the traditioÌ„s vsed in his time Basil de spiritt sacto cap. 27. reckoneth this in the first place Vt signo crucis eos signemus qui in Christo spem suam posuerunt The last of this age is St. Augustine whose glorious labours lightened the Christian world about the end of the yeare 300. To rehearse his many testimonies vvere an endlesse worke and therefore J will content my selfe with two only Aug. de fide symb ad Catech. lib. 4. cap. 1. the former in his fourth booke de fide Symbolo ad Catechumenos which he beginneth with these words Per sacratissimum crucis signum vos suscepit in vtero sancta mater Ecclesia and the latter in his exposition of the 30. Psalme Jn Psalm 30. Non sine causa signum suuÌ„ Christus in fronte nobis figi voluit tanquam in sede pudoris ne Christi opprobrio Christianus erubescat To the which purpose he speaketh in Psalm 141. vsque adeo de cruce non erubesco vt non in occulto loco habeam cruceÌ„ Christi In Psal 141. sed infronte portem c. To which place J refer the reader as also to his 53. and 118. Treatise vpon St. Iohn his 181. sermon de tempore and diuers other places So that these proofs of the Auntients duly considered we may be bould to pronounce against the Treatiser that the Auntients did vse to signe the Childs forehead in Baptisme Demonst prob ca. de signo crucis Refut Catech. Iesuitic and to affirme with Mr. Perkins Signum crucis per multa saecula fuit in sacrameÌ„ti administratione simplex ritus and with Pezelius vetus est haec Ceremonia ab ipsis incunabilis Ecclesiae Christianae vsurpata The collection therfore of the Treatiser is vaine wheÌ„ he concludeth after this sort They that in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme doe not consecrate the Element which the Auntients did doe crosse the Childs forehead which the Auntients did not doe not vse the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme as the Auntients did But the Church of England in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme doth not consecrate the Element which the Auntients did and doth crosse the Childs forehead which the Auntients did not Ergo. The Church of England doth not vse the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme as the Auntients
Master T. C. Especially seeing here you bring no matter but repeat your former equivocation of religious vse and repose vnto vs your olde Crambe of Religionis ergò so often recocted Your second obiection that this inuention did no sooner creepe into the Sacrament but it drew vnto it selfe such superstitious conceit of efficacy c. Is likewise answered in the last section the conceite of superstitious necessity that you say it drew vnto it that without c. is the fault of the persons that so conceiued of it not of the signe it selfe For this signe of the Crosse perinde est atque is qui vtitur bene vtentibus bonum est male vtentibus maluÌ„ est And therfore the best way to reforme this misconceite is to instruct them aright that doe thus superstitiously conceiue of it A farr better way then vtterly to abolish it as may appeare euen by your owne example of a childe lately rebaptized in Surrey because the Crosse was omitted For if this be true it is manifest that the taking of the vse of the Crosse cleane away would scaÌ„dalize alienate more mens minds froÌ„ our church then the retaining of it still can doe for seeing that they that will take offence at the remouing of it are the weaker and you that knowe what belongeth to matters of such indifferency are the stronger it is much more agreeable to the rule of Christian charity that you in the spirit of mildnesse should beare with their infirmities by allowing the lawfully established vse therof theÌ„ they should haue any cause of offence giuen vnto them by the vtter abrogating and remouing of it Jf any man among vs vppon such conceite of necessity of this signe as you intimate haue caused his Child to be rebaptized because the Crosse was omitted Charity bids me not to doubt but that the wisdome authority of our chiefe Gouernours haue had an eie vnto it the Minister that gaue the offence hath bin hartely sorry for his omission For Take heed saith the Apostle in another thing indifferent least by any means this liberty of yours 1. Cor. 8.9 be an occasioÌ„ of falling to them that are weake But now we will consider your two obseruations Treatise 14. Sect. Out of which may be observed first howe daungerous a thing it is to bring in any humane invention into the service of God sith in the very pure age of the Church it was punished with such a spirituall curse of horrible superstition Secondly though at this time Popery was not hatched yet the mystery of iniquity was then a working and the beginning as it were of the whorish fornication was found even in the Fathers times so that as worshipping of Angels in Paules time Colloss 2.18 praiers and oblations for the dead in Tertullians time be rightly counted Popish and Antichristian though as yet that monster was not borne so this and other ceremonies ratified by the Popish Canons constitutions may well bee taken for Popish and Antichristian even in the Fathers times seeing they then made a waie for the Beast and since haue receiued farther impiety authority from him VVherefore to conclude as I say exhorteth Gods people to keepe themselues froÌ„ the rites pollutions of the Heathen saying depart depart yee goe out from them and touch no vncleane thing so the spirit in the same manner chargeth the Church not to middle with the corruptions of Antichristian Babilon but goe out of her my people saith he that you may not bee partaker of her sinnes and that yee receiue not of her plagues The feare of which curse doth keepe vs from all the superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies of that whorish Synagogue Answere Touching your first observation How daungerous a thing it is c. Though J haue said sufficiently before yet this one word I adde more by way of remembrance That if humane invention be brought into the Church either with a purpose to aâ—tract any thing from the institution of God or to equall them to Gods ordinance or to obscure darken Christs institution or to impose a yoke or burden vpon mens consciences or with opinion either of efficacy or necessity or with mixture of impiety and superstition or that they should be estemed any otherwise of then of things indifferent then we confesse that it is indeed a thing very dangerous to bring any humane inuention into the seruice of God and that the cursse of God wil alwaies accompany such inventions But on the contrary side if they be brought into the Church only as Ceremonies to attend Gods institution as ornaments for decency order edification and admonition or if the causes ends and vses for which they were first instituted remaine still all which circumstances concur in our vse of the Crosse in Baptisme then we see no reason why they may not lawfully be vsed in Gods seruice and hould them not only free from Gods curse but also accompanied with his blessing so long as they are retained and obserued with these limitations Touching your second obseruation how a thing may be iustly reputed Popish Antichristian though it were before that monster of Popery and Antichrist were hatched J must needs say you bring vs to a pretty strange speculation and deriue the pedegree of Popish Antichristianisme farther then he that began the TroiaÌ„ war gemino ab ouo for you fetch it from before the egge the Hen too and make me to remember that vaunt of the Arcadians that boasted they were before the Moone That a Ceremony that is opposite vnto the Doctrine Gospell of Christ as you wrongfully suppose this to be may be Antichristian before Popery J doe not denie for Euen now saith Saint Iohn of his times 1. Ioh. 2.18 there are many Antichristes 2. Thess 2. The mystery of iniquity began to worke betimes Jt wrought in Simon Magus and his followers while Christ was yet aliue Jt wrought in Elimas the Sorcerer in the false Apostles and in the Nicholaitans in Menander Ebion and Cerinthus euen in the Apostls times All these were Antichrists And any heresy either in doctrine or Ceremony that they held against the truth word of Christ was AntichristiaÌ„ But that a thing should be Popish and Antichristian and that before Popery was hatched is in my vnderstaÌ„ding as if you should haue said The chicken was a bird before the Hen peeped out of the shell As in other things so in Antichristianisme TeÌ„pora sunt distinguenda or else we shal make a confusion of all things and so speake of heresies as if all heresies were but one heresie and those which St. Iohn calleth many Antichrists were but one Antichrist called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Antichrist whom you conceiue the Papacy to be Coll. 2.18 You proue this a simili as worshipping of Angels in S. Paules time c. Antichristian they might bee rightly counted because they were against the truth and doctrine