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.

C [...] 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 cōtrary 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 peraduēture 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 [Page] 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 comprehē ­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 reasō 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 thē we do now; or lastly, if they vsed it to any such end yet euen in them it was neuer free from sinne, [Page] 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 accord [...]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 o [...] [...]olatry, as that vse which the Auntients had of it, from that imputation of sin & super­stition, which vniustly is supposed to haue ac­cōpanied 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 cōtained, 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 Cōference 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 [Page] 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 contētions are since that time, much more rife then they were before, & pro­secuted with greater heate thē 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 [Page] 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 shalbe 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 shalbe alwaies willing to dispose my labours accord­ing to your Graces directiō; studying in althings wherin God shal enableme, to aduāce 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 this whole trea­tise is contracted.
  • 2 The proofe of the severall partes of this syllo­gisme.
  • 3 The answering of certaine obiections.

THE ANSWERE TO THE WHOLE SYLLOGISME. Concerning the maine syllogisme, let vs consider, first a little of the forme, and then afterwarde come vnto the matter.

[Page 2] IN the forme I only obserue, that if the Treatiser had gone ordinarilie to worke, and kept himselfe exact­ly to the termes of his Maior, the Minor would much better, and with lesse suspition of deceipt haue beene conceaved thus:

  • No humane ordinance becomming an idoll, may lawfullie be vsed in the service of God.
  • But the signe of the Crosse is a humane ordinance becom­ming an idoll.
  • Ergo The signe of the Crosse may not lawfully be vsed in the ser­vice of God.

For so the ambiguity of the word, becomming woulde haue still remained, and we might still haue beene at our choice whether we would take it for beseeming, and ad­ding ornament or decencie to an Idoll, or for being made or become indeede an Idoll it selfe. And I marvaile much why the Treatiser held not this course, considering that, first it would haue been as availeable for his present pur­pose, and secondly it would stil haue left an impression in the minde of the readers, that no ornamēt, or other thing beseeming or adding decencie to an Jdol (and they can make what the list an Jdol) may lawfully be vsed in Gods service. By which meanes as great a blow woulde haue beene giuen to Caps, Sūrplisses, Hoodes, and Copes, as now by this Treatiser is giuen to the signe of the Crosse.

But the Treatiser (you will say) meant more honestly, and therefore having vsed a word of doubtful significa­tion in the maior, he very sincerely restrained it in the mi­nor to his purposed intent, therby shewing that he dealt plainely, & intended no deceipt. His sinceritie and true [Page 3] dealing is no waies testified by this meanes: for had he indeede meant plainly, and intended no Sophistication, hee woulde haue conceaved his syllogisme in vsuall, and knowne termes, & such as are proper and familiar in this argument of ceremonies, as namely insteede of humane ordinance he would haue vsed Ecclesiastical constitution, for becomming an Idoll, he would haue said, abused to Ido­latrie, or superstitiously abused, in place of service of God, hee would haue put celebrating of Gods service, and so haue concluded in this, or some such like forme.

  • No Ecclesiasticall constitution, that sometime hath beene superstitiously abused, may afterwards be reduced to his first lawfull vse, and so retained in the celebrating of Gods service.
  • But the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, is an Ecclesiasticall constitution, that hath sometime beene superstitiouslie abused.
  • Ergo The signe of the Crosse in Baptisme may not bee reduced to his first lawfull vse, and so retained in the celebrating of Gods service.

This observation I make the rather because the very name of humane ordināce is alwaies odious, & importeth traditions merely humane, wicked, impious, and lying, proceeding frō our corrupt nature: for the which cause humane doctrines, the commandements of men, are re­proved by our Saviour: contrarywise the name of Eccle­siasticall constitutions, is much more gentle, & gracious, and importeth ordinances made by the Church of Christ, Zanch. in com­pend. loco. 26. pag 640. which the very name affordeth to be not meerly humane, and therefore not false, but in part divine, and therefore good, true, holy, and such as please God. The reason is. The Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ, who is the [Page 4] truth, and therfore the traditions of the Church are true and holy. And yet it pleased the Treatiser, in his charity, rather to vse humane ordinance, then Ecclesiasticall consti­tution, to what purpose and intent let the indifferent Reader iudge.

But because he was to make choice of his tearmes by his owne iudgment, and not by my direction, I wil ther­fore follow him in his owne words. And then I say again, that if he had indeede meant honestly, and intended no sophisticatiō, he would in such propositions, as expresse a thing to bee iust or vniust, lawful, or vnlawful, haue set downe the circumstances of time, persons, and place, or such other like. Of time in this sort.

  • No humane ordinance, once of good vse, that afterwarde became an Idoll, may lawfullie be vsed in the service of God.
  • But the signe of the Crosse being a humane ordinance, once of good vse afterward became an Idoll.
  • Ergo The signe of the Crosse may not lawfully be vsed in the ser­vice of God.

Of place, and persons thus.

  • No humane ordinance becōming an Idoll in the Church of Rome, and amonge the Papists, may lawfully be vsed in the seruice, of god in the Church of Englande, and a­monge the Protestants.
  • But the signe of the Crosse is a humane ordinance becom­ming an Idoll in the Church of Rome, and amonge the Papists,
  • Ergo. The signe of the Crosse may not lawfully be vsed in the seruice of God in the Church of England, and amonge the Protestants.

For thus the falshood and inconsequence of his ar­gument [Page 5] would easily haue appeared vnto all men. But the Treatiser thought it more for his aduantage, to muddie his propositions, concealing all circumstances that might giue li [...]ht to the point in controuersie, and to set down his argument confusedly, the more to stūble the vnskilfull Reader. But leauing the forme of this syl­logisme, let vs briefly come to the matter therein con­teined.

The Maior.
The answere to the maior.

‘No humane ordinance becomming an Idol, may lawfully be vsed in the seruice of god.’

The maior is merely false, for although the Syllogizer doth verily perswade himselfe, that he hath cunningly contriued into on proposition, two inexpugnable rea­sons, why the signe of the Crosse may not lawfully be vsed in the seruice of god, the first because it is a humane ordinance, the second because it is become an Jdoll, yet there is no truth neither in the one, not in the other.

Concerning the first, that no humane ordināce is to be vsed in the seruice of god, I would faine knowe of the Treatiser what he meaneth by the seruice of god. Jf he meane (preaching, which to that sect is now become al­most the only seruice of god) J will propose such plaine matter against his assertion, as himselfe shal not be able to contradict. The sentences which St. Paul borrowed out of heathen Poers, Aratus. Acts 17.28. Menander, 1. Cor. 15.33. Epimenides, Titus. 1.12. were first of hu­mane inuention: for so the Apostle expressly citeth two of them in there seuerall places. Secondly they were v­sed in the seruice of god: For the first was vsed in a ser­mon to the Athenians; the second in that great argu­ment [Page 6] & heauenly discourse of our resurrection: the third in his instruction to Titus how he should carrie him selfe towardes them of Creet. And lastly, for anie thing that euer J could learne, they were well and law­fully vsed in gods seruice. For though it haue pleased those that are of opinion with our treatiser, in the hu­mor of there sect, and fauor of there 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 thatDe 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, [Page 7] 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, mē ­tioned 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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,Tertull. in A­pol. cap. 46. * Quid adeo simile Philo­sophus et Christianus? Graeciae discipulus et caeli? famae ne­gotiator, et vitae? &c yet in the commerce and inter­course of there knowledge, as on the one side, Quis poe­tarum? quis Sophistarum qui non omnino de Prophetarum fonte potauerit? vt facile credatur diuinam literaturam, thesaurum fuisse posteriori cui (que) sapientiae: so on the o­ther side,Aug. de doct. christi. li. 2. c. 40. * Nonne aspicimus quanto auro et argento et veste suffarcinatus exierit de Aegipto Cyprianus doctor suauissimus, et Martyr beatissimus? quanto Lactantius, quanto Victorinus, Optatus, Hylarius, and to omitt the rest, quanto ipse qui hoc scribit Augustinus? So that in those times,Lactant. lib. 4. * Philosophia humana suis armis confecta obmutuit. and there was not anie one of the auncient fa­thers, that was not able to conuince prophane Poets, Sophisters, & Philosophers, out of their own principles and superstitions, God in his wisdome soe giueing gifts to those his most worthie instruments,Niceph. Cal. lib. 8. cap. 29. that they, * Tan­quam periti Musici gratum et iucundum decantantes car­mē, super vacaneas quo (que) percurrere plectro chordas potu­erint, et ornatus gratia supra eas quae ex vsu sunt, alias etiam adijcere.

Secondly for the Leiturgies & forme of diuine seruice in those times, as we do willingly acknowledg, al things to haue beene of far more simple and plaine obseruati­on, then they came afterward vnto, so it cannot be deni­ed, but that euen then also humane ordinances & inven­tions [Page 11] were vsed in Gods seruice: for what else shal wee cal, and to what head shal we refer, the Leiturgies of St. Iames vsed in the Church of Ierusalem? of St. Basill vsed in the Church of Caesarea Cappad? of St. Chrysostome v­sed in the Church of Constantinople? of St. Clement, vsed in the Church of Rome? and generally of all those other famous Leiturgies mentioned in the Ecclesiastical hi­stories, and recorded to haue been vsed in several Chur­ches in the most flourishing state of the Primitiue Church? what conceipt shal we haue of those zealous & religious Christians, that haue in al ages, and in al Chur­ches, without any interruption, so devoutly song, & said, Athanasius, and the Nicene Creede? what of the hea­venly dittie, Te Deum, compiled by St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, and from them derived into al Churches? what of the sacred hymne Trisagium, vsed first in the Church of Constantinople, & afterward commended to the world by the councel of Calcedon? what of so manie excellent hymnes, verses, Antiphonies, Responsories, Roga­tions, and Letanies, as we read to haue beene made by S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Hilarie, S Ambrose, S. Augu­stine, Synesius, Prudentius, Gregorie the great, Sedulius, and divers others, vsed continually in the Church? And lastly, (to avoide infinite examples to this purpose) what shal we thinke of the fourth Coūcel of Toledo, Conc. Toleta. 4. Canon. 12. that doth iustifie the saying of praiers, & singing of hymnes made by men, against such as woulde haue nothing vsed in the church, but what is in the Canonical scriptures, or hath beene receiued by the Apostles?De consec. dist [...] 1. ca. de hymnis Quia nonnulli hymni hu­mano studio in laudem Dei, at (que) Apostolorum, & Marty­rum triumphos compositiesse noscūtur, sicutij quos beatis­simi Doctores Hylarius & Ambrosius condiderunt, quos ta­men [Page 12] quidam specialiter reprobant, pro to quod de scripturis sanctorum Canonum, vel Apostolica traditione non exi­stunt; respuant ergo & illum hymnum ab hominibus compo­situm, quem in fine omnium Psalmorum dicimus, gloria & honor patri, & filio, & spiritus sancto, &c. Similiter & to­tum illud, quod sequitur post Angelicum hymnum, gloria in excelsis Deo, &c. quod tamen Ecclesiastici Doctores compo­suerūt, &c. I haue the more willingly repeated the most part of the Canon, because it so fitly meeteth with the thwart humor of certaine men of our time, who scoffing­ly and in contempt cal those godly songs made by men (which are ioined in the same volume with our singing Psalmes) Ballads & Jigges and such like names, and can abide nothing but the Geneua Psalmes (as they cal them) to be sunge in our Christian congregations. As if they certainely were Gods word it selfe, & not rather expo­sitions and paraphrases made by men.

Thirdly; for the rites and ceremonies of those times it must be remēbred that first for a lōg space in the church, they were Iudaical, either because mē borne & brought vp in the Iewish Paedagogie,Beza epist. 8. knewe not what belonged vnto Christian liberty, or else because many worthy and famous men in those daies were of opinion, that all the Iewish ceremonies, could not suddenly be abrogated, without the great offence & scādal of the weaker sort. Of which opinion it seemes St. Augustine also was, who of­tentimes praiseth and commendeth this saying, Iudaicā Synagogam cum honore fuisse sepeliendam. Secondly it is to be observed, that they were divers & sundrie in divers Churches,Socrat l. 5. c. 21. Euseb. hist. Ec­cles. lib. 5. c. 23. according to that saying of Socrates. Omnes Ecclesiarum ritu qui in singulis vrbibus, regionibus (que) v­surpantur, scriptis mandare vt valdè laborio sum est, ita [Page 13] vix aut ne vix quidem fieri potest. Cuius (que) enim religionis & sectae varij sunt ritus, licet eadem de ipsis habeatur opi­nio, & qui in eadem fide consentiunt, ijdem ritibus & cere­monijs inter ipsos discrepant.

Thirdly, it must also be remembred that they were li­berae observationis, no one Church prescribing to ano­ther, nor condēning another for diversity of ceremonies, but every one following their owne customes, and vsing that freedome that is agreeable to christian liberty. This point is fully proued by many particulars in the place formerly alleadged out of Socrates, & most plainely deli­vered vnto vs, not only in the example of St. Ambrose, Cum Romam venio, ieiuno Sabbato, cum hic (Mediolani) sum, non ieiuno, Aug. ep. 118. ad Ianuarium, but also by his advise and councell com­mended to S. Augustine, Sic etiam tu ad quā forte Ecclesi­am veneris, eius morem serua, si cuiquam non vis esse scan­dalo, nec quenquam tibi. Which advise and councel of S. Ambrose, as often as St. Augustine thought vpon, he al­waies embraced as an oracle from heaven, because hee had often found, and with much griefe lamented, that many weake brethren were troubled by the contenti­ous obstinacy, and supersticious feare of some men, who in those matters, which cannot certainly be resolued vp­on, neither by the authority of the scriptures, nor by the traditiō of the vniuersal church, became so troublesome that they thought well of nothing, but what they did them selues: Either because they had some sleight rea­son for there opinions, or because 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, [Page 14] 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 cō ­cerning 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 vehemē ­tiùs 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 [Page 15] 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, quàm 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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 de­prehendo, quam materias sorores esse vasculorum, instru­mentorum (que) comunium: and that therfore as they Jdola­ters them selues, Publicos et domesticos deos publicâ et do­mesticâ potestate tractarunt, pignerando, vendicando, demutaudo in Cacabulum de Saturno, in trullam de Mi­nerua, every man as his present will or necessitie requir­ed, so wee, abandoning the superstition, and imbracing the Creature, which God at the beginning made good, may apply it to his seruice. My reason is this, while the Jdoll, & they things consecrated to the Jdoll, were both abused to Idolatrie, they were both equally distant frō God, and alike removed from his seruice, differing noe otherwise, then that the Jdoll was the thing worship­ed, and the consecrated thinge, that where with it was worshipped. And suppose the Jdoll were a litle farther estranged from God, and a stepp further in the power of the Deuil, yet, Non desinit esse eius qui creauit, No creature of God can be so farre alienated from him, vt [Page 18] non posset quando vult repetere. Nihil enim ita est sub potestate Diaboli, quin ad gloriam et honorem dei possit con­verti. Jf this be granted (and as I thinke it wil not be de­nied) then this phrase to become an Idoll, importeth in ef­fect no more, then to be abused to Jdolatrie, or to be cō ­secrated to the service of an Jdol. Whereby it wil come to passe, that whatsoeuer may be alleadged, for the good and lawful vse of things in Gods service, that were some­times abused to Idolatry, the same also may be alleadged to proue, that even that thing also may haue a good and right vse in Gods service, which sometimes hath beene an Jdol it selfe.Tertull. de Ido­lat. cap. 8. Nec enim differt, saith Tertullian, Si ex­truas, velexornes, si templum, si aram, si adiculam eius ex­truxeris, si bracteam expresseris, aut insignia, aut etiam do­mum fabricaveris. Nay he goeth farther and plainely af­firmeth, Maior est eiusmodi opera, quae nō effigiem cōfert, sed authoritatem. Wisd. 13.16. And in very truth the Artificer that made it knoweth well enough, that it is but woode or stone,Minut. in octa. &c. Nondum Deus saxum est, lignum, aut argentū; Ecce ornatur, consecratur, oratur, tum postremò Deus est, cum homo illi valuit, & dedicavit, saith Minutius, The greatest fault then is in him, that by erecting, adorning, and adoring of it, procureth vnto it the credit and opini­on of a God.Aug. in Psal, 113. For by this meanes, Etiam qui non invenit vitalem motum, credit numen occultum: seductus forma, et commotus autoritate, sine vivo aliquo Habitatore esse non putat.

Hauing laide this foundation, J come nowe to ex­amine the Treatisers proposition. And first, if we consi­der it in Thesi, That nothing once abused, may ever af­ter bee well vsed, but must bee vtterly abrogated and re­iected. It will easely appeare to be most vntrue, not on­ly [Page 19] in thinges naturall and artificiall, which haue beene exceedingly abused: (for so wine must bee gone, because it hath beene abused vnto drunkennes: meats, because some haue abused them to gluttonie: swords, because by some cruell hands they haue beene imbrued in inno­cent bloude) but euen in those things also, which are sayd to be the devises & inuentions of prophane & hea­thenish Jdolators, nay, euen of the heathen Gods thē selues, which yet might be thought most vnlike to be fitted to holy vses, for that they haue proceeded from such corrupt fountaines. Of things naturall, Aug. Epist. 154 ad Publicolam. St. Augu­stines opiniō is, Si de areâ vel torculari tollatur aliquid ad sacrificia Daemoniorum, etiam sciente Christiano, ta­men vtitur mundis reliquis fructibus, vnde illa sublata sunt, &c. Euē as we vse those fountains, out of which we most certainely knowe, that water is drawen for the vse of sacrifices. Neither doubt we to fetch our breath frō that aire, into which we knowe, that the smoke of al the altars, and incense of Deuils doth goe. For we must beware, least that if we shall suppose, that we may not eate those herbes which growe in the garden of the Tē ­ple of an Jdoll, it also followe, that wee imagine, that the Apostles ought not to haue eaten bread in Athens, because it was the Citty of Minerua, & consecrated to her Deitie. This also may we answere of that well and fountaine which is in the Temple, and of those sacrifices which are cast into the well and fountaine: nay more, which are therfore cast into the water, to doe sacrifice vnto the waters, Neither must we therfore refuse the benefite of this light, because they sacrilegious, when so they can, cease not to sacrifice vnto the same. Sacrifice also hath beene offered vnto the windes, which not [Page 20] withstanding wee vse to our manifolde commodity, al­though they themselues seeme as it were to draw in, and sucke vp the smoke of those sacrifices. Of artificial things likewise St. Augustines iudgment is the same. Ne (que) enim propatria non est miles armandus quia contra patriam nō ­nulli arma sumpserunt. Nor therefore may not the good and skilful Phisitions vse medicinal yrons for cure, and safety, because the vnskilful and ill-disposed men, doe vse the same for death and destruction. Otherwise no yron were to bee vsed either in house or field, for feare least some man should therewithal slay himselfe, or others: nor must there be a tree, or a corde remaining, for feare least any man should hang himselfe. Neither must vve make any windowes, for feare least some one or other should cast himselfe headlong from the same. Tertullian also is of the same opinion, not only concerning those things, but of such things also as haue beene vsed and in­vented by the Pagan Gods.Tertull. de coron mill. cap. 8. For, Primus Mercurius lite­ras excogitaverit, &c. Let it be so (saith he) that Mercury was the first that invented letters, yet for al that I wil ac­knowledge them to be necessary, both for matters of cō ­merce amongst men, and also for our studies towardes God.Vide August. de doct. Christ li. 2 cap. 18. Nay, say also that hee likewise invented Musicke, neither wil I denie (knowing what David did) but that this invention also was agreeable to the Saints, & mini­stred in the service of God. Let Aesculapius be the first in­venter of medicines: why, I remember that Esaie mini­stred a medicine of figges vnto Ezechias being sicke: and Paule could tel Timothy, that a litle wine was good for his stomacke, and for his many infirmities. Yea, and though Minerva also first framed a ship, yet J see that Ionas and the Apostles sailed in ships. And, which is more, though [Page 21] every thing, and vessel necessarie for our vse, had one of the heathen Gods to bee the author, yet that is no cause why Christ should not be cloathed, or S. Paule not weare a cloake. And J must confesse also that Christ lay vpon a bed, and vsed a bason when he washed his Disciples feete: and that he powred water out of a pitcher, and was gir­ded about with Linnen, the stuffe peculiar to Osiris. Last­ly, Aristotle speaking of the vse of Logicke & Rhetorick. Arist Rhet. lib. 1. cap. 1. Si obijciatur (saith he) quòd valde nocebit is, qui vtatur in­iustè huiusmodi facultate rationū, why this is an ordinary obiection against al good things (vertue only excepted) and most of al against those things, which are most profi­table, as strength, health, riches, militarie discipline, &c. For these be things, which a man may doe much good withal, if he vse them iustly; and exceeding much hurt, if he vse them vniustly. The reason hereof is, because the evill vsing of good things, proceedeth only from the cor­rupt nature of the vser, and therefore cannot alter the goodnes of the creatures, which God hath made, and stamped vpon them this marke, that God saw that every thing that he had made, was exceeding good.Gen. 1.

The selfe same reason also holdeth in Hypothesi, to what thing so ever a man wil apply it, and is most true e­ven in the point we haue now in question. Things abu­sed to Jdolatrie, nay even to make an Idol it selfe, haue not therefore lost al manner of good & holy vse, because the fault was not in the things so abused, but in thē that abused them so. A proofe hereof we haue in the Apostle S. Paul, who vsed that thing in the service of God, wher­of other men had made an Jdol. For I demande. The al­tar in Athens, hauing this inscription, vnto the vnknown God, was it not a thing consecrated to an Idol? Or rather, [Page 22] not to digresse from the Treatisers phrase, was it not be­come an Idoll it selfe? I suppose the Treatiser wil not deny it: for S. Paule reckons it among their superstitions, be­cause they worshipped, they knew not what. And did not S. Paul vse it in the service of God? No doubt he did, when hee tooke the Inscription thereof for the text and theame of his sermon. Whom you ignorantly worship, him shew I vnto you. Lastly, did he not vse it lawfullie in Gods service? J am perswaded hee did, both because the Athenians could not be better conuinced, then by their owne ignorant deuotions and superstitions, and also be­cause God gaue a blessing to this sermon, in Dionysius Areopagite, and Damaris, and divers others: according to the observation of Cassiodore in the Tripartite histo­rie.Hist. Tripart. lib. 9 cap. 29. Ille sancto spiritu ditatus, multos Atheniensiū adduxit ad fidem, quando ea quae in ara erant scripta, sensu propria narrationis exposuit.

Jf this example will not content our Treatiser, J re­mitt him ouer to the 6. Chapter of Iosuah ver. 17. and likewise to the 6. Chapter of Iudges ver: 25. Jn the for­mer place the Cittie of Ierico, and al the wealth therein was made Anathema, an execrable thing vnto the Lord: & yet all the siluer, & gold, and vessels of brasse & yron were consecrated vnto the Lord, and commanded to be brought into his Treasurie.Iudg 6.25. In the latter place God commanded Gedeon to destroy the altar of Baal, and to cut downe the groue that was by it, and yet he would al­so haue the wood of the groue that was cut downe, and the bullocke that Ioas the father of Gedeon had stalled se­ven yeares, & had so long before ordained for a sacrifice vnto Baal, to be offred to himselfe for a burnt offring. And why al this? but to make it manifest that God is the [Page 23] Lord of all things, and that nothing can be so farre gone into the power of the Devil, but it may be againe reclai­med to the honor, & service of God. For although Mo­ses in the golden Calfe, and Ezechias in the brasen Ser­pent, shewed each of thē a memorable example of their religious zeale, and iust anger against Idolatrie: the one by burning the Calfe in the fire, grinding it into powder, strowing it vpon the water, and making the people drink thereof. The other by breaking the Serpent in peeces, and calling it Nehushtan, a vile and contemptible peece of brasse: yet those actions rather commend the zeale of those good Princes, detesting the Idolatry and Idols thē ­selues, then are any waies left for a necessarie rule for o­ther men. For whereas there are two things memorable in these actions, the one, the taking away of the Idolatry, the other, that vtter destroying, and abolishing of the J­dols; The first, is left to Christian Princes & Magistrates for an example of imitation: The latter, as it increaseth a commendation of their zeale, so it imposeth no neces­sity on other men to doe the like: as may appeare, not only by the two former examples commanded by God himselfe, but also by many other worthy, and famous re­formations made by Christian Princes, in the Primitiue Church. Among whom one Theophilus is commended in the Tripartite historie, for faithfullie perfourming the commandement of Theodosius the Emperour, who had given him commission, to destroy al the heathen Idols in Alexandria, & to imploy the matter and riches of them, to good and holy vses. According to which commande­ment, Idola Deorum destructa à Theophilo, Hist. Tripart. lib. 9. cap. 27. ex mandato Theodosij Imperatoris, conflabantur adfaciendas ollas, & ad Alexandrinae Ecclesiae diversos vsus, cui ab Imperatore [Page 24] donati fuerunt Dij, ad expensas egentium. Many exam­ples of the same Theodosius, and of Constantine the great in former ages, as also of other Christian Princes & Ma­gistrats in their several times, might be alleadged to this purpose. But I wil conclude this point with the most iu­dicious sentence and resolution of St. Augustine, where­by he confirmeth whatsoeuer I haue spoken.Epist. 154 ad Publicolam. Cū templa, Idola, luci, &c. when Tēples, Jdols, groues, or any things of like quality, by autorized power are ruinated and cast downe, if they be translated into common, and not pro­per vses, & converted to the honor of the true God, that falleth out in them, which hapneth also in men, when as of sacrilegious and vngodly persons, they become pliable and conformed to the true religion. And well may vvee imagine, that God hath intimated and taught vs this, in those testimonies which he laid before vs, when he com­maunded that the woode which grewe in the groues of strange Gods, should be vsed in the holocaust, and that al the gold, and siluer, and brasse of Ierico, shoulde bee brought into the Lords treasurie. Jf this iudgement of St. Augustines be true, then it is as lawful to vse the mat­ter of an Idol, or to speak in the Treatisers language, that very thing that was become an Jdoll, in the service of God, if it be reclaimed and remoued from Jdolatrous su­perstition, as it is for a man, from an Infidell to become a Christian, or from an euil and wicked man, to become a true convert, and faithfull servant of God. And thus much to be answered to the Maior.

The Minor.
Answere to the minor.

‘But the signe of the Crosse, being a humane ordinance, is become an Idoll.’

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, [Page 26] which he vseth as an example for illustration, he giueth vs this general directiō, 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 Decorū 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 consūma­tion, 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 [Page 27] heauen. Secondly, it is a fit exercise vnto pietie. For,De sanct. ser. 19 de verb Apost. ser. 7. Tract. in Ioan. 118. Ad Christū 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 actiō 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 conditiō 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 frō sin, the grand impugner of modesty, & mother of shame, brin­ging to minde, whatsoeuer Christ hath wrought, and we [Page 28] 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 Religiō, for those rea­sons alleadged before in the condition. Sed, et si solū 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 e [...]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, as may iustly take away al confusion, barbarity, contumacy, troubles, and dissentions▪ being so reduced to the first institution, as neither too much is ascribed vnto it, as in the mani­folde superstitions of Poperie: nor too little, or rather no­thing at al, as in the confused phantasies of the Anabap­tists. But you wil say there are dissentions about this ce­remonie [Page 29] in our Church, true, but in whome is the fault? not in our Church, that by the order of this Ceremony, would take away al confusion, tumult, and dissention: but in those turbulent men, who will neither admitt, vt qui praesunt, regulam ac legem benè regendi nouerint, aut plebs quae regitur, ad obedientiam Dei, rectam (que) discipli­nam assuefiat, which is the first thing required in order: nor suffer, vt bene composito Ecclesiae statu, paci et tran­quillitati consulatur, which is the second. And these be the true causes, why they cannot content them selues with the good order of this Ceremonie, but would haue Novelties, and alterations brought into our Church. But J leaue them to be better aduised by the good coun­sell, and earned iudgment of Mr Bucer. Bacee. de ordin [...] Minist Eccle. i [...] Aug cape [...] * Ad illos autē qui offenduntur, vnto such as be offended, because some vsuall rites are yet reteined, we may well answere, that if they would but consider, howe neither discipline, nor order can be preserued in the Church; without some Ceremonies, this might suffice to satisfie them: For if we grant that, which cannot be denied, that it is behoueful, for some Ceremonies to be, it is then a necessarie con­sequent, that vsuall Ceremonies, which we may well vse, cannot be reprehended, even for that sole antiquitie, which doth procure thē rather authority, thē reproofe with all men that be carefull to continue the quietnes of publicke peace, and feare to be taxed for leuitie, and af­fected novelties, which al together, as much as possi­bly it may, ought to be auoided, in the propagation of true doctrine.

Lastly, this ceremony of the Crosse in Baptisme, hath in it al those other conditions both negatiue, and affirma­tiue, that Mr. Calvin requireth in laudable Ceremonies. [Page 30] First negatiue, it is not thought necessary vnto salvation, nor in that respect to binde the conscience. Secondly, it is not receiued with any opinion of divine worship thereto belonging. Affirmatiue, it is accompanied with that gra­vity, that is required in al honest actions. Thirdly, it is reverend, and may both procure a venerable regarde to the mysterie, and also bee a helpe to stirre vs vp to pietie. Fourthly, it tendeth to edification. And lastly, that it may want no complement, it hath his generall foundation in the Scriptures. And therefore by these rules of Mr. Cal­vin, may be wel said to be both a divine, and humane cō ­stitution. Divine, because it is founded vpon S. Pauls ge­neral direction, Let all things be done decently & in order. Humane, because the continual vse and practise of the Church, hath alwaies thought this consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme, one of those Ceremonies that are performed with decencie and order, & therefore iudged this particular, to be fitly deduced out of that generall.

Secondly, that the signe of the Crosse is become an I­doll. And herein lurketh, the whole deceipt of the Trea­tisers Sophisme, who because it is confessed, that the Crosse hath beene abused among the Papists, and vvor­shipped, cultu latriae, as himselfe afterward sheweth, would therevpon inferre, that therefore the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, cānot be wel vsed by vs Protestants. Our answere therefore in few words is this; Jf he meane that the Crosse is become an Idoll, in the Church of Rome, we grant it. But what is that to vs? If hee meane that the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, is become an Idoll in the Church of England, we deny it: & then to what purpose is this Treatise? For whereas he would make our Crosse in Baptisme, the same that it is in the Church of Rome, [Page 31] both in name, and in forme, and in religious, Pag. 14. though not Idolatrous vse, as he speaketh, It wil appeare vpō due ex­amination to be vtterly vntrue. For to graunt that they are the same in name (for they are both called Crosses: & in forme (for they are both crosse lines drawn in the aire, and yet I must tell the Treatiser, that their vsing manie Crosses in the same thing, doth diversificare formā, make the forme diuers from vs that vse but one) yet the religi­ous vse of them is notoriously different. For first, they giue vnto their Crosse divine power, and vertue, as if it could sanctifie things crossed therewith, driue away Di­vels, heale infirmities, & fence vs from all māner of dan­ger: we ascribe no such vertue or power vnto ours. Secōd­ly, they yeeld vnto their Crosse, abilitie to merite pardon for veniall sinnes, to convert sinners, and to giue saluatiō: wee yeelde no such ability, or efficacie vnto ours. As for their Idolatrous vse, whereby they adore and worshippe their Crosse, cultu latriae, we much more dissent frō them, and are farre frō giving any adoration, or either outward or inwarde service vnto ours. So as it seemes the Treati­ser vvas not wel advised when he said, their crosse & our crosse is the same in religious vse, for neither did hee re­member (as I shal tel him hereafter) that we put no reli­gion in the vse of the Crosse, as the Papists doe, but onlie vse it in a religious action: neither I beleeue (if hee were wel put to it) could he shewe the difference betweene the religious vse, wherein he saith we agree with the Church of Rome, & the Idolatrous vse,Lact. li. 4. c. 28. wherin they dif­fer from vs. For if Religio be veri cultus, and Superstitio falsi, as Lactantius distinguisheth, J should thinke that our vse, being veri cultus, were only religious, and theirs beeing nothing else, but falsi cultus, were only Jdola­trous, [Page 32] and superstitious. But J leaue the ful sifting & ex­amining of these points to there proper place. Jn the meane time J make this obseruation, out of the Treati­sers owne mouth, that, contrary to his aimed intent, & purpose in this syllogisme, hee freeth vs frō al Jdolatrous vse of the Crosse: whence, against the malignitie of this Miner proposition, J gather this Conclusion out of the Treatisers owne words.

That which hath not an Idolatrous vse in our Church, is not an Idoll in our Church.

But the signe of the Crosse hath not an Idolatrous vse in our Church. Ergo.

The signe of the Crosse, is not an Idoll in our Church.

The Maior is plaine, for Idolum, & Idolatria are Re­latiues, Posito vno, ponitur et alterum, For neither can an Idoll be, but where Idolatrous vse is, neither Idolatrous vse, but where an Idoll is. The Minor is the Treatisers owne proposition, and the truest proposition in his booke, and therfore the Conclusion must needs directly followe of the premisses.

The Conclusion.
Answere to the Conclusion.

Ergo, The signe of the Crosse may not lawfully be vsed in the seruice of God.’

The Conclusiō 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 [Page 33] body, lighteth into the aire and hurteth not. And for a­ny thing in this syllogisme contained, the Crosse may be stil both lawfully and commend [...]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.


From the maine syllogisme, the Treatiser cōmeth 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:

[Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 explanatiō 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, fingit (que) 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, imaginariū & 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 [Page 36] 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, 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 detestatiō 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.


In the explanatiō 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 [Page 37] 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 contradictiō to the Treatisers owne words a little after, where he saith, that without doubt, the meaning of the second commande­ment [Page 38] 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 questiō, 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 wilbe 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 [Page 39] 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 secundū 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 ma [...]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 [Page 40] 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 vpō 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 [Page 41] 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, quàm 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.

[Page 42]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 mē ­tion, 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.


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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 had in their times, howsoever in the times be­tweene them and vs, it hath bin abused by some to Jdola­trie. Epiphanius misliketh it not in his time,Epiph. lib. to. 2. contra haeres. Ebionis. as may ap­peare in that narration he maketh of Josephus. Tertulliā, we are sure, would indure it wel enough, who so often & willingly mentioneth it and in all his writings commen­deth the vse of it,Tertull. de coron [...]il. cap. 3. Ad omnem progressum at (que) promotum, ad omnem aditum & exitum, ad vestitum & calceatum, ad la­vacra, ad men sas, ad lumina, ad cubicula, ad sedilia, quae­cun (que) nos cōversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo ter­minas. T.C. lib. 1. Insomuch that T. C. pronounceth (full rashly & without al cause) that the Lorde left a marke of his curse vpon it, for comming out of the forge of mans braine, & being so much abused.Aug serm. 181. de temp. And for St. Augustines opinion I refer you to his hundred eighty & one sermon, de tem­pore, or if that please you not, to his sermon de verbis do­mini, Aug ser. de ver­bis domini. where hee saith. Quod ipse honoraturus erat fideles suos in fine huius saculi, prius honoravit crucē in hoc sae­culo, [Page 45] &c. Quod cū magna Insultatione persecutores Judaei Domino procurarunt, cum magna fiducia seruieius, etiam & reges in fronte nunc portant. And yet notwithstan­ding al this, we are as well, and better perswaded of their vehemency against erecting of images, and of their zeale against spirituall fornication, then the Treatiser is, & can more easily be induced to beleeue, that their zeale here­in was not without knowledge, then these men can so slenderly acquaint themselues with their knowledge, or zeale: and as in this: so in all other pointes, never cite a­ny testimonie out of them sincerely, and according to their meaning.

Fourthly▪ the Treatiser much overlasheth, where hee marshals vs among the worshipers of Idols, Concluding that streine of his with this forcible [...], shal any then make an Idoll of the Crosse? and that Religionis causâ, and yet be innocēt? True it is. The prophet Dauid saith. They that make them are like vnto them, &c. but what? is his meaning that they are like vnto them for simply making them? J trust no: for then how wil you iustifie your for­mer words? that an Image may be made and reteined for Ciuil respects, we make no question: His meaning is thē, They that make them to worship them,Wisd. 13.17. and to put their trust in them, as all Idolatrous makers doe, are like vnto them, we make the Crosse indeed, but neither to wor­ship it nor to put our trust in it: And therfore J hope are no more to be Condemned as cursed Transgressors of the Law, then you are when you write the letters of T. C. name, which you cannot do but you must needs make a Crosse. And J think verily, that you put more religion in this T. then our Church doth in the signe of the Crosse. As for your Crābe of Religionis causâ, it is answered be­fore, [Page 46] and is an odious imputation, by you fastened on our Church, without all colour of truth.

Treatise. 4. Sect.

Now if any doubt, whether the signe of the Crosse be a­dored: & so made an Idoll: let him well consider the tract of Bellarmine, de adoratione crucis, where distinguishing the Crosse on which Christ was hanged, from the similitude thereof, he saith, ceterae cruces illi similes, inter sacras imagines numerantur. And after he distinguisheth those similitudes of Christs Crosse, into the Image, & signe of the Crosse, so that if the Image of the Crosse bee taken for an I­doll, (& who knoweth not that it is the vniversall Idoll of Popery, & to be adored, even cultu latriae, which worship, as they themselues holde, is due only vnto God,) the signe of the Crosse must needes be taken for no better. Besides, the same Bellarmine hauing,De Imag. l. 1. 30 as is said, distinguished the crosse into three sorts, the true Crosse, the image of the Crosse, and the signe of the Crosse, he laieth downe this doctrine generally of them all, omnes cruces adoramus, and parti­cularly of the signe of the Crosse hee saith,De Imag. lib. 2 cap. 29. signum crucis quod in fronte, vel in aere pingitur, esse sacrū & venera­bile. To this agreeth Pōtiformus Sarisb. 4. where it is thus professed, adoramus crucis signaculum, per quod salutis sumpsimus sacramentum.

And that the Image, & signe of the Crosse, is of one, & the same accompt with Papistes,Confer. with Hart. cap 8. di­vis. 4. pag. 509. appeareth evidently, as by diverse, so particularly by Hart. For Doctor Raynolds, shewing that the Church of Englande, hath iustly left the signe of the Crosse out of the supper, for the Idolatry there­of, doth proue that it is worshipped as an Idol, by such testi­monies, as indeede belong to the image of the Crosse, which Hart no way excepted against, doth imply, that looke what [Page 47] estimatiō they haue of the Image, the same they haue of the signe: & what honor is due to the one, is due to the other.Andra. Orthod explic. lib. 9. Bellar. de im­iib. 2. cap. 50. For in very deed they carefully teach, that it is not in regarde of the matter, wherein the Crosse is painted, or the colour whereby it is shadowed, but only & simply, for the expressing of the likenes of Christes Crosse, & for the representing of Christ crucified (which the signe performeth as wel as the image) that they adore the Crosse with the same honor, that is due vnto Christ himselfe: And this no doubt was the meaning of Aquinas, when he saith,Th Aquin part 3. q. 25 artic. 4. that every effigies or likenes of the Crosse (whereof the signe is one) is to be ado­red cultu latriae: and Costerus doth avouch, that the same worship is due to the signe, as belongeth to the very Crosse of Christ. VVhē he saith (though falsly) Christiani, Coster. Euch. cap. 11. à Chri­sti temporibus, semper summa veneratione coluerunt ipsum signum dominicae crucis, & signum crucis, quo se quotidie muniunt, Marke that the signe of the Crosse is worshipped, summa veneratione, Orth. explis. lib. 9. with the highest degree of honor, and, as Andradius in expresse words saith, In the same māner, that the Image of Christ himselfe is worship­ped: then the which, what can be more cleere to prooue, that not only the Image, but the signe of the Crosse, is by Papists most Idolatrously worshipped?

If any say, that to the signe of the Crosse none boweth the knee, or vaileth the bonnet, and therefore it is not adored. I answere first, that adoration is interne, and externe: and the externe adoration is therefore Idolatry, because it pro­ceedeth from the interne, as Zanchius very learnedly,Zanch. de re­dempt. lib... c. 17 and largely sheweth.

If a man may invocate to an Angell, or giue any honour internall to a creature, shall it not be called Idolatry, except he bow outwardly vnto it? How then doeth Paule saie that [Page 48] Couetousnes is Idolatry? For a rich man doth not outward­ly worship his goods;Eph. 5.6. Coloss 3.5. [...]rk. 10.24. Tim. 6.19. Luk. 12 15. Phil. 3.19. yet because he giueth vnto it interne confidence, which is due vnto God, it is truely called his I­dol, as vnto the Sardanapali there belly is termed their God: Right so the Papists ascribing to the signe of the Crosse, that honor, & confidence which belongeth to God, doe make it an execrable Idoll,Quaest. disput. de venial p [...]ce. & so most vnfitt to stand in the sanc­tuary, or to be annexed to the holy things of God. For first they ascribe vnto the signe of the Crosse, power & vertue to meritt pardon, at the least for veniall synnes, as appear­eth by Tho. Aquinas, Bellarmine, and the Rhemistes.

Also it is held, to partake of power efficient, and imme­diatly operatiue, and that to conuert sinners: Marshall de cruce. fol. 114. 115. yea to gaine saluation, Hosius cōtra Brent: pag. 227. and generally the whole rabble of Romish Doctors, doe teach to put great affiance in this signe, for chasing away diuells, and curing diseases, and sanctifie­ing both man, and other Creatures to the vse of man.

Secondly I say indeed, they doe giue outward, aswell as inward worship to the Crosse. For it is apparant, that they inuocate it, in the same māner, that they inuocate Saincts, when they say. Per crucis hoc signū fugiat procul omne malignum. By this signe of holy Crosse, let euills al flie farr from vs. Againe by the signe of the holy Crosse, from our enemies deliuer vs o Lord our God. Also in another place, victorious Crosse and admirable signe, make vs triumph and ioy in heauenly Courts diuine yea in praiers, they ioine at with Iesus Christ, as in officio Missae, is to be seene, where they supplicate, per misericordam Iesu Christi, per auxilium & signum Crucis, per intercessionem beatae Mariae, &c. They couple it also with the bloud of Christ, in these words, defend me Iesu ab omnibus vitijs, malis [Page 49] praeteritis, praesentibus, & futuris, per signum sanctae crucis, & per in aestimabile pretium iusti, & pretiosi sā ­guinis tui. All which doth most manifestly proue, that a­mong the Papists it is religiously honored, both with in­ward confidence, and outward reuerence.


Though al that the Treatiser alleadgeth in this sectiō, should be graunted, yet nothing is concluded against our Crosse. For whereas his conclusion should be this, Ergo. the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, as it is vsed in the Church of England, is an Idoll, he bringeth vs only this conclusion, Ergo. the signe of the Crosse, in the Church of Rome, is an Idoll, his argument is this.

VVhat soeuer the Church of Rome doth adore, with di­uine honor, & whervnto it yeeldeth both interne cōfidence, & outward worshipp, is an Idoll,

But the Church of Rome doth adore the sign of the Crosse with diuine honor, & yeeldeth vnto it interne cōfidence, & outward worshipp, Ergo.

The signe of the Crosse, in the Church of Rome, is an Idol.

The Maior is false. VVhat soever the Church of Rome doth adore, &c For so the bread in the Lords supper, should likewise be an Idoll, because the Church of Rome doth a­dore it, with diuine honor, and yeeldeth both interne confi­dence, and outward worshipp therevnto, as is better obie­cted, then answered in the first obiection. Againe, if vnto those words, whatsoeuer the Church of Rome doth adore &c. is an Idoll, you had added those words, in the Church of Rome, your Maior had beene true, & we should not haue denied it. But from secundū quid, to cōclude ad sim­pliciter, (as you alwaies doe,) is too simple a Conclusiō to deceaue any man, that is but a meane Logician: wee cannot [Page 50] graunt that their is, eadem ratio vrbis et orbis: nor that that must needs be an Idol in euery place, that the Church of Rome hath made an Idol within hir owne Iurisdiction.

Touching the Minor, we partly graunt it, and part­ly denie it: we graunt it, De signo crucis materiali, such as were Crucifixes, of wood, stone, or mettall, & plaine Crosses of all sorts, without the Image of Christ. And so we vnder­stand all your proofes, two only excepted, whereof you shal heare our answer by and by. De signo, or rather de cō ­signatione crucis immateriali, drawen in the aire, or vpon the forehead, without any print remaining, we denie it, and answere to your two proofes, the one out of Bellar­mine: Signū crucis quod in fronte, Vel in aere pingitur, est sacrum & venerabile: the other out of Costerus. Christi­ani summâ veneratione coluerunt signum crucis, quo se quotidiè muniunt. that there is great difference betweene veneratio, the word that they vse in those places, and a­doration, the word that you applie vnto them; The first expressiing only a reuerent regard, that they haue of the signe; The other a religious worship, which you say, they yeeld vnto it. J wil not take vpon me their defence, nor iustifie their absurdities, for J willingly acknowledge, that they haue too too superstitiously thought of this consig­nation also, and extended their summa veneratio, to the highest degree of supersticious opinion, in ascribing too much power, vertue and efficacy thervnto, as you declar­ed in the second place of this Section. But yet J cannot be persuaded, that signum sacrum & venerabile, or sūma veneratio, as they call it, do signifie adoration, with di­uine honor, or interne confidence, and outward worship, as you affirme,

Three things therefore I answere to the Minor. First, [Page 51] That the Papists doe indeed very superstitiously deeme, of the consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme, that it is of vertue, force, & efficacy, which we do vtterly & in plaine tearme deny. Secondly, I suppose that the Treatiser will never be able to proue that the cōsignatiō of the Crosse in Baptisme, (evē in the grossest time of Popery) was ever made an Idol, or had any divine adoration, or interne wor­ship or externe honour exhibited vnto it. For first, howe could it, the thing ceasing to bee, as soone as ever it was made? and then, who should worship it? The childe could not, the Priest & people reflected rather their devotion to their materiall wooden Crosses, and mettall Crucifixes, which they had ever at hand, then to this immateriall transient marke. Ac certum est, Zanch de re­demp. li. 1. c. 17 omnes ferè Idololatras so­litos semper fuisse, ne (que) Deum, vel verum, vel falsum, vel vllam creaturam, externa adoratione colere, & adorare, ni­si sub, & in aliquâ figurâ illum representante, and so farre only holdeth that,Tho. Aqu p 3. [...] 25. 4. cap. which you alleadge out of Tho. Aqui­nas, that every effigies, or likenes of the Crosse, is to bee adored, with the same honor, that is due vnto the Prototy­pon: namely, if it be effigies, a materiall shape or simili­tude, which remaineth post opus, not the immateriall ef­figiatio, or signing, that passeth, and leaueth no impressi­on, after the Action.Eph. 5 6. Coll. 3.5. Phil 3.19. As for your allegations out of St. Paule, that covetousnes is Idolatry and that vnto the Sar­danapali, their belly is their God, the comparison is not e­qual. For the divine honor, that you conceiue to be foū ­ded in consignatione crucis, is groūded only vpon a thing transient, & imaginary, but contrarywise, the Idolatry of the covetous man, and felicity of the belly-god, are both founded in materiali obiecto, vpon a reall, & not vpon an Imaginary foundation;Zanch. de redēp lib. 1. cap. 17. Auarus tribuit the sauris suis quod [Page 52] proprium est Dei, & Sardanapalus saginae suam foelicita­tem.

Thirdly, J affirme, that though Poperie hath estee­med superstitiously of the Crosse in Baptisme, which wee confesse, and given divine honor vnto it, which we thinke may very probably be denied: yet our consignation in Bap­tisme, is altogether different from theirs, as before hath bin declared in the answere to the Minor of the maine Syllogisme.

Treatise. 5. Sect.

And therefore if their Idols, may in no sort be annex­ed to the service of our God, the Crosse in Baptisme ought necessarily, to be crossed, and cursed out of our Leiturgie.


This is that, you haue all this while houered about, & yet can finde no fit Medius terminus to conclude. For how wil these two propositions hang togither?

The signe of the Crosse in the Church of Rome is an Idol, (which hath bin the only thing you haue proved in the former section.) Ergo:

The consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme, vsed in the Church of England, must needs be crossed and cursed out of our Leiturgie?

You vndertake to leap too far at once, there are many bankes in your way: you must proue, first that the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, in the Church of Rome, is an Idoll, which is not granted. Secondly, you must proue, that our Crosse, and their Crosse in Baptisme is al one, in nū ­ber, nature, vse & estimation: you must lastly proue, that we may not lawfully redeeme, an ancient Ceremony, out of his abuse, nor restore him, to his auncient lawfull vse a­gaine: al which, I feare, or any of them, wilbe too hard a [Page 53] taske for you to vndertake, but your present argument is this.

The Idoll of the church of Rome, may in no sort bee an­nexed to the service of our God, but must be crossed, & cur­sed out of our Leiturgie.

But the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, is an Idoll of the Church of Rome. Ergo:

The consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme, in the Church of England, must be crossed and cursed out of our Leiturgie.

The Maior is granted. The Minor is denied; for first, as was saide before, you will not bee able to proue, that their immateriall consignation with the Crosse in Bap­tisme, was ever made an Idol: and if you chance so to do, yet sure I am you wil never proue, our consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme, to haue bin an Idoll of the Church of Rome; your conclusion therfore, and your premisses are so farre a sunder, that they wil never bee reconciled. Jt seemes your crossing and cursing hath lighted vpon your owne conclusions, they are so cursedly crossed, and crossed­ly cursed, that they conclude nothing plainelie and di­rectlie.

Treatise. 6. Sect.

Neither is it sufficient to say that the Crosse amongst vs, is ne (que) numero, ne (que) vsu, the same that theirs is, and though theirs be an Idoll, yet ours is not. For when God cō ­manded his people, to breake downe the Images of the hea­then, and to extinguish the very name of thē, had they per­formed that chardge, if they had burnt all the Idols of Ca­naan, and afterward made new of the same forme, and to another vse, though not Idolatrous, yet religious? Or hovv haue we discharged our duties, and shewed our detestation [Page 54] of that filthy Idolatry, if having defaced al the Popish Cru­cifixes, and Idols, we erect them new in our Church, though not to worship them, yet to any other holy vse whatsoever?


If this be not a sufficient answere, then you may make it more sufficient by adding ne (que) aestimatione, ne (que) opinio­ne religionis, as hath beene taught you before; But why is this reason vnsufficient? Your reason is, For when God commanded, &c. To your first demaunde I answere, no. And yet that toucheth vs not. The things compared are nothing like. They should haue destroied the olde Idols, and not haue made new: we make no newe Idoll, but re­store an ancient Ceremony of the church, to his first in­tegritie: which we take we may lawfully doe.

To your second J answere likewise▪ That we erect no new Popish Crucifixes, and Idols in our Church, but re­store an ancient constitution of the Church, to the reve­rend vse of the consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme: Not to worship it, nor yet to ascribe virtue vnto it, as you would suggest, but to be a Ceremony of Decency, & Order, agreeable to so holy, and religious a Sacrament.

Treatise. 7. Sect.

It is true, that our Crosse, and theirs is the same both in name, & forme, but not in vse, for then were it Idolatrous; Now I doe not say that the Church of England doth com­mit Idolatry: but that it ought to abstaine, not only from the Idolatry, or worship, but euen frō all religious vse, of such humane ordinances, and inuentions, which others haue & doe Idolatrously adore; For, if to erect Crucifixes, and other Popish Images for holy vse, be (contrary to the Commande­ment) a keeping of an honorable memory of the Idoll, how can the religious vse of the Crosse in Baptisme, being as [Page 55] well an Idoll, as any of their Images, be reteined without breach of the Law: Babes keep your selues from Jdols?


Jt is true, that our Crosse & theirs is the same in name, but neither in forme, nor religious vse altogether. J saie altogether, because in some religious vse, ours and theirs is the same: namely in this, that both they, and wee vse it for an outwarde Ceremony, to testifie that the childe shall not be ashamed, to confesse the faith of Christ crucified: their superstitious vse we admit not, and their Idolatrous vse (which I wonder how you doe distinguish from their superstitious vse) you free vs from. But you say, we ought to abstaine, not only from the Idolatry, or worship, but even from all religious vse, of such humane ordināces, as others doe Idolatrously adore. From the Idolatrie I confesse, but not from that religious vse which is good, and tendeth to a good end. That it is a humane ordinance, hindereth not, because being withal an Ecclesiasticall Constitution, it is thereby made in part divine. That they vse it some way superstitiously, is no reason, why we should not cō ­cur with them in that wherin they vse it wel. For,Aug. de doct. christ. li. 2. c. 18. Quis­quis bonus, verus (que) Christianus est, Domini sui esse intel­ligit, vbicun (que) invenerit, veritatem.

The erecting of Crucifixes, and other Popish Images, for holy vse, is indeede a keeping of an honorable memory of the Jdol, & yet the wel vsing of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, in our Church, is not so. For neither doth our Church propose it as an Idoll, but as a Ceremonie of decen­cie, and Order, fit for a sacred Action: neither doth it pro­pose it as a remembrance of Popish Idolatry, as you would imply, but as an outward testimony of our profession, and as a memoratiue signe, to put vs in minde of our Christian [Page 56] duetie: which may make vs rather detest, then religious­ly remēber the abuses of Popery. And therfore neither is it aswell an Idol, as any of their Images, which you will not proue in hast: nor a breach of the Apostles exhortation, Babes keepe your selues from Idols.

Now we come to the third general part of this Treatise, wherin the Treatiser endeuoreth to answere certaine ob­iections of ours, in defence of the Crosse: Our first ob­iection he setteth downe in these words.

The first obiection. 8. Sect.

The signe of the Crosse in the first institution was free from superstition and Idolatrie: and if the abuse which grewe after be remoued, why should it not recouer his aun­cient vse, and indifferency, like as the bread in the Lords supper, which the Papists do religiously adore?

The Treatisers answere to the obiection.

There is great difference &c.

I expected the Treatiser in his answere to our obiecti­ons, framed by himselfe, would haue made every thinge plaine and euident: so as a man at the first sight, might perceaue the answere fitted and applied to the obiection in every point: But some thing there was: either hast, or Jgnorance, not knowing how to answere, or Conscientia fraudis, or J knowe not what, that would not suffer him to speake directly, nor to exemplifie his allegations, but make him wind himselfe every way, and so to double, & huddle things together, that my selfe J confesse, and J beleeue few men else, can find in him, Quid cui respo dea­tur, what is answered vnto which; as to any man that di­ligently marketh, what he saith to the first obiection, may plainly appeare. By which meanes, though he hath put me to a double labour, yet J will endeuor in my Replie, [Page 57] both to fitt his answeres to the obiection, and make them stronger; so, that the indifferent Reader shall perceaue, that no wrong is offered him; and yet with all J wil so dis­couer his shifts, & windings, as al mē J hope that come not with that obstinate resolution of, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, shall rest fully satisfied, & contented. Now therfore to his answere.

His answere consisteth of three parts. The first wherof is of those differences, which are betweene that, which God hath created, and commanded, and that which man hath ordained: whereby he would implie, as I take it, that the reason is not like, why the Crosse recovered out of the abuse should returne to his ancient integrity; & why the bread in the Lords supper, reclaimed from Popish a­doration should be againe restored to his right vse.

The second part of his answer, is of a double vse of the Crosse: Civill and Religious, whereby he would imply, as I thinke, that the civill vse may be restored to his ancient indifferency, but the religious vse cannot.

The third part of his answer, is cōcerning our abusing of the sign of the Crosse, in the Church of England, who, he saith, retaine it among vs with opinion very supersti­tious, and erroneous; and vse it otherwise, then the ancient fathers did: Each of these I will consider by it selfe, in their several order: The first therefore hee delivereth in these words.

Treatisers answere to the 1. Obiect.

There is great difference betweene that which God hath created, and commanded, and that which Man hath ordai­ned, for the one is necessary, and no abuse can alter the na­ture of it; the other indifferent, and by abuse may become vnlawfull: and therefore Hezechia did worthily breake [Page 58] the brasen Serpent, not seeking to redresse the abuse of it: Nowe howsoever Bellarmine woulde insinuate, that the Crosse is founded on Scripture, yet the weaknes of his ar­guments, doe bewray the vnsoūdnes of the matter; & ther­fore Tertullians iudgment, is to be preferred, which plain­ly saith,De coron. mil. that there is no warrant in Scripture for it; Ho­rum inquit si legem postules, scripturam nullam inve­nies, traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, consuetudo con­firmatrix, fides observatrix.

Replie to the Treatisers answere.

Here J obserue, first your assertion, That there is great difference, betweene that which God hath created, & com­manded, and that which man hath ordained.

Secondly, your proofe of this difference, by these parti­culars.

1 That which God hath commaunded is necessary, as the bread in the supper of this nature are Churches, Pul­pits, &c. things of necessarie vse, and warranted by God himselfe.

That which man hath ordained is indifferent, as the Crosse in Baptisme.

2 No abuse can alter the nature of that, which God hath commanded, and is necessary: as the bread in the sup­per, Churches, Pulpits, &c. That which mā hath ordained, and is indifferent, may by abuse become vnlawful; as the retaining the brasen Serpent, which was no where com­maunded.

3 That which God hath commanded, is warrāted by the scriptures.

That which man hath ordained, is not warranted in the scripture.

For howsoever Bellarmine would insinuate, &c. yet [Page 59] you preferre Tertullians iudgement, who saith, Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, &c.

Jf this bee not your meaning, in the first part of your answere, I confesse, J cannot attaine vnto it: your words are so intricate, & doubtfully set downe; which hath cau­sed me to vse the helpe of your margent, for the better vnderstanding of your text.

For replie therfore vnto this your assertion, we wil­lingly acknowledg, that there is indeed great difference, betwene that which God hath created, & commanded: and that which man, as man, hath ordained: for the first proceedeth frō the clear foūtaine of al goodnes, wisdōe, and truth: the latter from the corrupt fountaine of mans hart; wherin naturally is nothing, but wickednes ignorāce, and falshood: But if you make your comparison, betwene that which God hath commanded, & that which the Church of God hath ordained, (as in reason you ought to doe) the differēce is not so great, as you would haue it; Let Gods commandement haue worthely the first place, and prehe­minence in al things, as is meete; but let the ordinances of the Church, be immediatly subordinate vnto Gods com­mandement, and ranged in a second place: not only be­cause the Church of God heareth his voice; but also be­cause she is ruled by his spirit: and by the great, 2. Pet. 1.4. and preti­ous promises of God, is made partaker of the diuine na­ture: which no doubt doth assist them, euen in the lawes also, and constitutions, which are made for Order & De­cency in the Church.

Concerning your first proofe, & point of difference, when you say, That which God hath commanded is neces­sary, that which man ordained is indifferent; J grant, that which God hath commanded is indeed necessarie, for the [Page 60] matter, Beza ep. 2. circa med. and necessarie for the forme: (wherein yet looke vpon the second Epistle of Mr. Beza. How far it is neces­sarie to be done as he hath commanded:) necessary to be re­claimed from all abuses, that it hath bin subiect vnto: and necessary to be restored to his first and true vse. But be­fore we grant you your second proposition. That which man hath ordained is indifferent: we must be instructed, what you meane by this worde indifferent: for if you vn­derstand, the things them selues, as they are of themselues, we grant that the Church cānot make a thing indifferent, to be of it selfe, other then a thing indifferent: but if you vnderstand the same things, as they are for vse, lawfully commanded, or forbidden, by the authority of the Church, then we must tel you, that it is not freely in your owne power, and liberty, whether you will vse them, or not vse them accordingly: for then they cease to be altogether in­different, & beginn to become some way necessary: which that you may the rather beleeue, J will direct you to Mr. Bezaes 24. Epistle, where you may learne it.

Bezae ep. 24. ad 5. 6. 7. & 8. Res alioqui per se mediae (saith he) mutant quodammodo naturam, cum aliquo legitimo mandato, vel praecipiuntur, vel prohibentur; quia ne (que) contra iustum praeceptum omitti possunt, si praecipiantur, ne (que) contra interdictum fieri, si prohibeantur.

Things otherwise of them selues indifferent, change their nature after a sort, when they are either comānded, or forbidden, by anie lawfull authority: because they can neither be omitted, contrary to the iust precept, if they be commanded; nor done contrary to the prohibition, if they be forbidden. And a litle after.

Jbid. m▪ 9. Nam et si conscientias propríe solus Deus ligat: tamen quatenus Ecclesia, ordinis & decori, adeó (que) aedificationis ra­tionem [Page 61] habens, leges aliquas de rebus medijs ritè condit, e­iusmodi leges pijs omnibus sunt obseruandae, & [...]atenus cō ­scientias ligant, vt nemo sciens & prudens, rebellandi a­nimo, possit abs [...] peccato, vel facere quae ita prohibentur, vel omittere quae sic praecipiuntur.

For though God only doth properly bind the consciences: yet so farr forth as the Church, hauing regard of order, de­cency, and aedification, maketh rightly any lawes, cōcern­ing things indifferent: those lawes are to be obserued, by al godly men, and so far bind the consciences, that no man wittingly, and willingly, with a purpose of rebelling, may without sinne, either doe those things which are so forbid­den, or omitt those things, which are so commanded.

I pray you Mr Treatiser, marke diligently the words, conscientias ligant, or, nemo sciens & prudens rebellandi animo, possit abs (que) peccato: for you knowe how many of your brethren, are forgetfull of this instruction: without sinne, say you, what sinne J pray you?Hemmingius in Syurag cap. de adiaphonū. 9 J referre you for an­swere to an other. Qui violat Ecclesiasticam politiam pec­cat multis modis: primum enim reus fit violati ordinis in Ecclesia: deinde authoritatem Magistratus contemnit: tū infirmorum conscientias vulnerat: postremò nocet exem­plo: & charitatem erga fratres violat.

He that breakes the Ecclesiasticall Policie, sinneth ma­ny waies: first hee is guilty of breaking the orders of the Church: secondly he contemneth the authority of the Ma­gistrates: thirdly, hee woundeth the consciences of the weake: and lastly he hurteth by example, & violateth the law of Charitie.

Againe whereas speaking of things necessary, in your margent you giue vs to vnderstād, that of this nature are Churches, Pulpits, &c. J demand, of what nature? meane [Page 62] you of the same nature, that the bread in the supper is? for so the purport of your answer seemeth to imply, that be­ing only vrged in the obiectiō. Jf this be your meaning, you are very much mistaken: for though Churches and Pulpits, are very necessary in deed, in their kinde: yet their necessity is not of that nature, that the bread in the supper is of. For the bread in the supper, is simply, and absolutely necessary, insomuch that if there be no bread, there is no Sacrament: but Churches, and Pulpits are only necessarie for conveniency, Tert. Apol. c. 2. and decency: for I hope, those Caetus an­telucani, ad canendum Christo & Deo, meetings in the morning to sing to Christ, and God, as Tertullian spea­keth, frequented by the Christians, in the time of perse­cutiō, Just. Mart. A­pol. 2. non lodge à fine. were grateful vnto God, though not done in Chur­ches, and those verba praepositi exhortatoria, ad imitationē tam honestarum rerum, words of the Provost, wherewith he exhorted to the imitation of so honest things, vvhich Iustine Martyr mentioneth, may be esteemed good ser­mons, though not deliuered out of Pulpits. To conclude this point, if Churches be of the same nature for necessity, that the bread in the supper is, how hath it of late yeares come to passe, that many of your brotherhoode, in the freedome of Christian religion, haue made choice of pri­vate houses for their sermons, rather then of Churches? & of the end of a table in a Gentlemans parlour, rather then of a Pulpit? These your practises haue made proofe vnto the world, that Churches, and Pulpits, howsoever necessa­ry, are not yet so necessary, even in your owne opinion, as the bread in the supper: nor so greatly respected by you, as here you would make vs now beleeue.

Your second point of difference, betweene things cō ­manded by God, and ordained by man is, No abuse can al­ter [Page 63] the nature of that, which God hath cōmanded, but that which man hath ordained, may by abuse become vnlawful: as the retaining the brasen Serpēt, which you note in the margent, was no where commanded, and therefore Heze­chia did worthily breake it, not seeking to redresse the a­buse of it.

In the first of these propositions. No abuse can alter the nature of that, which God hath commanded. I confesse J do rather guesse, then wel vnderstand what you meane by altering of the nature: J suppose your meaning to be this, viz. that no abuse fastened by Papists, vpon the bread in the supper, can so alter the right vse thereof, but that by the Orthodox and right beleevers, it may againe be re­duced to his first integrity: we concur with you in this o­pinion, & thinke the very same in the signe of the Crosse: No, say you, not so, because that which mā hath ordained may by abuse become vnlawfull: this we confesse also, but adde, that by right vse, it may againe also become lawful: for what should hinder it? Because, say you, it is ordained by man▪ so then the point of difference consisteth in the di­versity of the Authors: the bread abused may againe bee rightly vsed, because God is the author of that institution: the Crosse in Baptisme once abused, can never againe be rightly vsed, because man is the ordainer thereof: God and man doe differ, tanquam creator & creatura: betweene whom Christ being both God and man, is [...], medius: be­tweene God I say, on the one side, & all mankinde on the other: but to bring them yet a great deale nearer: God & faithful man, regenerated by the spirit of God (of which sort is the Church and every true member thereof) doe differ, tanquam pater & filius, as the father & the sonne, Ier. 3.1. I will bee a father vnto you, and yee shall bee my sonnes and [Page 64] daughters, betweene whom Christ in both natures, is, [...],2. Cor. 6.18. Eph. 3.22. a mediatour, or reconciler, to take away that diffe­rence, which was betweene them, and vs, that wee might be the habitation of God by the spirit: So that these, as you see, differ only as relatiues, whose difference is, their natu­rall reciprocation, and whose diuersitie is their coniunctiō: the on not crossing, but referring it selfe vnto the other: Only God and vnregenerate men, differ, tanquam hostes, like opposites, Rom. 8.7. for [...] that swaieth in them, is enmity with God, as the Apostle teacheth: so that, except you wil say, that vnregenerate and wicked man, is the or­dainer of the Crosse, as you doe falsly, when you say it is, the inuention of Antichrist, the man of sin (for by your owne confession, it is more auncient then he) you see there is no such great difference between the bread in the supper, and the Crosse in Baptisme, ex parte autoris, in re­spect of the authors. The one being the ordinance of God, the other of the Church of God, which heareth his voice, & is guided by his spirit: the one being the ordinance of God, the other of the faithfull, the obedient Children & sons of God: as partly before hath bin declared. J supposed ra­ther, that you would haue made the difference to consist, in the diuersity of the pollutions, which each of them in the time of their abuse had cōtracted. The bread, a pollutiō indeed, but easely separable, & remoueable from it againe: The Crosse such a pollution, or filth, as afterwards you please to call it, as no water can clense it, nor any pretext purifie it, for the holy seruice of Iehoua. But because you vse these florishes, in the next sectiō, J wil spare to speake of it, tel J meet you there.

Thirdly you presse vs with the example of Hezekiah. The brasen serpent, say you, though commanded by God [Page 65] himselfe, yet retained without his expresse cōmandement, became an Idoll, and was therfore worthily broken of He­zekiah, not seeking to reforme the abuse, Therfore much more the Crosse in Baptisme, which was ordained by man only, being abused in as high a degree of Idolatry as the bra­sen Serpent was, is vtterly to be destroied, without any far­ther redresse.

This is the, nodus Gordius, [...], and height of all your obiections, your fortresse, and bulwarke, your Herculeum & Achilleum argumentum, wherin you repose all your strength and greatest confidence: and therfore J wil inde­uor, so to fitt mine answere, to euery point therof, as J trust the indifferent reader, shal easely perceaue your weaknes, euen in the midst of al your strength:

Therfore concerning your comparison, betwene the reformation of Ezechiah, and our Gouernors, J answere, first in this example, we must put a difference, betweene those things that are common therin and left for example of imitatiō to other men, and those things which are pro­per, and peculiar to this action: The things common to all good reformers, and left to others for example of imitati­on, are these.

First the duty of a Kinge & cheife Magistrate, on whom it lieth to reforme abuses, and without whose authority, no priuat man is to assume that office, vnto himselfe:Aug epi 50. ad Bonif. comitem. Rex domino aliter seruit quia homo est, aliter quia etiam et Rex est: quia homo est, et seruit viuendo fideliter quia etiā Rex, ei seruit, cum ea facit adseruiendum illi, quae non potest fa­cere, nisi Rex. which J note the rather to put our Treati­ser, and his adherents, in minde of their too much forward­nes, to begin reformation, being but priuat persons, and to put it in practise, without commission. Bucer. in script. Angl pag. 154. Nemo hanc au­toritatem [Page 66] publicam, Wolphius in hunc locum. & consensum Ecclesiae, Priuatis homi­nibus, vt hoc agant, pius et sapiens autor est nemo. Those priuat men, that are thus busy, had neither piety nor wis­dome, to giue thē counsell for so doing. Secondly His zeale in Gods cause, which was most feruent, & such it ought to be, in al good Gouernors, and reformers. Thirdly his re­formation in repressing Idolatry, & taking away the occa­sion therof. Fourthly that together with his reformatiō, he ioined instruction, & teaching of the people: for whē hee saw them to repose a power of healing, in the brasen Ser­pent, he called it Nehustan, & shewing thē the matter, taught them that it had no such power in it; and was no­thing but a lump of brasse: al these things, J doubt not, but that our reformers proposed vnto themselues, for an example of reformation.

The things proper to this action, and hauing peculiar reference, after a sorte, to the person of Hezekiah were first his manner of reformation, by breaking the brasen Serpent in peeces, & vtterly annihilating of it: Secondly the particular motiues that might induce him, to this re­formatiō, namely one inward, being extraordinarily mo­ved therevnto by the spirit of God, which doth appear in this, that hee did otherwise reforme it, then his religious predecessors before him had done. Another outward be­ing occasioned so to do because Achaz his father, had ei­ther himselfe brought this superstitiō into his kingdom, or else being brought in formerly, by his Predecessors, had by his example, and authority giuen great furtherance, and encouragement thervnto; and therfore, vtterly to take a­way that staine wherwith Achaz had stained the house and stock of Dauid, Hezekiah, no doubt, was the rather in­duced to this distroying kind, and manner of reformation.

Now if our Predecessors, and Reformers followed him [Page 67] not, in this manner of reforming, by vttter subuersiō, they had great reason so to do, being men, whom neither the abuses might so particularly concerne, as this did Heze­kiah, and knowing moreover, that, Ad eundem finem multis medijs peruenitur. Reformation of abuses, & taking away of Jdolatry is the end, and this end may be attained by more waies then on, as either, by

Instructing the people, and teaching 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 [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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, [Page 70] 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 cō ­mended 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. 10. of the Primitiue Church. That it is not indifferent to our Church, whether it bee taken away, or not: both because we are not to reiect ancient institutiōs, where there is no neede, and also to make knowne to the Romanists, that we willingly reiect nothing, that possiblie [Page 71] may be reduced, to his first integritie. Vpon these groūds and deliberations, our good Magistrates in K. Edwardes daies, did not abolish the vse of the Crosse in Baptisme. And vpon the same grounds our worthy Prince, & Ma­gistrates that now are, thinke it meete, to retaine it still. Quid hic peccatum est? what offence J pray you is this? or why should not you be as fauourable to our Christian liberty herein, as the most learned Mr. Beza is?Beza Respon. ad Franc. Baldvin. pag. 227. Scio non nullos sublata crucis adoratione, aliquem signi crucis vsū retinuisse; vtantur igitur ipsi, sicut par est, sua libertate.

I answere thirdly that our Reformers did the same thing, in their reformation, of the Crosse in Baptisme, which Ezekiah did in his reformation of the Brasen Ser­pent: for what was that which Hezekiah did? surely it was, that he tooke away the abuse, wherin it was faulty, not the right vse, wherein it was typicall, and figuratiue. The abuse wherein it was faulty, was the burning of In­cense vnto it, and worshipping of it, & the occasion of this abuse was that opinion, and estimation of Deity, which the people had falsly affixed vnto it: both these he tooke away; namely the abuse, and the occasion. Our reformers haue done the very same; They haue taken away, first, the abuse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme; which was, the too great estimation, and opinion, of grace, power and vertue, that the people erroniously reposed in it: and secondly, the occasion of that abuse; which was the igno­rance, and misvnderstanding of the people, for want of instruction.

Only the difference is: that the abuse which was the least, in the Idolatrous Iewes; namely their false opinion of Deity in the Serpent, was the greatest in our men, as touching the Crosse: and that which was the greatest in [Page 72] them; namely their worshiping, and burning incense, vn­to the Serpent, was none at al in ours, in the signe of the Crosse. For our men, going as far as they, in ascribing ver­tue, which was an equal fault in both, could not go so far in worshiping, & adoring, because of the diversitiy of the natures, of the seueral things. The brasen Serpent, being a substance materiall, and permanent, and therfore easely subiect to adoration, by reason of the outward shape, and forme: The signe of the Crosse an action immateriall, and transient, & therfore nothing so easely, to be worshipped, by reason it wanted both substance, shape, and forme.

Secondly Hezekiah, neither tooke away, nor purposed to take away, the right vse of the serpent, wherin it was not faulty; namely, that it was a type, of Christs exaltatiō, on the Crosse, and therin a representation, of the Messiah: This vse remained still, after the reformation of Hezeki­ah: Neither did our Gouernors, take away that vse, of the signe of the Crosse, wherin it was not faulty: Neither did they suppose it meete, to take it away: but restoring it to that vse, for which it was instituted at the first, left it stil to be a memoratiue signe, of our promise made to Christ in Baptisme, and a secret, and faithfull admonisher of our duties. So that we may safely say, our Reformers follow­ed the reformation of Hezekiah, most exactly in al points, wherein the diuers natures of the abuses, & the things, did not make a necessary difference of their reformation.

Concerning your comparing of the authors: The bra­sen Serpent commanded by God, and the Crosse in Bap­tisme ordained by man, though J haue answered therto before, this now J add moreouer, by way of retortion: Though both did giue occasion to Idolatry, yet the bra­sen Serpent, even therfore, because it was ordained by [Page 73] God, might minister a more probable, present, and obuious fall into Idolatry, then the Crosse in Baptisme, in that it was ordained by man: This I declare thus.

When mens minds are once infected with superstiti­on, they take holde soonest of that, which is most com­mended by the author: & the more worthy the author is, the more firmely they cleaue to that, which they haue once fastned their error vppon, if therfore they finde God to be the author of it, they take that for reason sufficient, why they should worship it. This cause made the Idola­trous Iewes, not only to worship the brasen Serpent at the first; but also to thinke, that in so doing they did well; be­cause they worshipped only that, wherof they knewe cer­tainly, God himselfe to be the author. The same reason moued those Idolators, reproued by the Prophet,Ierem. 13:19. Ierem. 8.2. to burne incense to the Sunne, and Moone, and all the host of hea­uen, and to worship thē, thinking their Idolatry the more iustifiable, because it tooke occasion, not vppon any in­uention of man, but vppon those excellent creatures of God, whom hee hath placed so high, and adorned with so great beauty: Contrariwise, the deuises and inuentions of men, such as the Crosse is, are alwayes doubtfull, and sus­pected, euen vnto the Idolators themselues; and haue not their occasion, so present, & immediate, as the other: For first, the Author must haue some reason for his deuise, and then authority, to giue countenance thervnto: and lastly, the opinion of the people, approuing the reason, & imbracing the authority, which points being wel consi­dered, as they make a farther way about, to bring the cre­dit of adoration, to that which is inuented by man: so they are good meanes, to persuade the people to forsake their Idolatry: when they haue imbraced it: So that your argu­ment, [Page 74] from the diuersity of the Authors, doth rather make against you, then giue any strength to your cause.

The like may be said of the opiniō of vertue, which the Jdolator is alwaies willing, to ascribe vnto his Idoll. For when it doth manifestly appeare, that that, which he maketh an Idoll, is commanded of God, the Jllation is farr more present and easy Ergo, it cannot be without vertue: then can be applied to any ordinance deuised by man.

Concerning your comparing of the brasen Serpent, and the Crosse together, wee must confesse, the Jdolatrie is like, and worthy to be punished with like extirpation, so long as you cōpare, the material brasen Serpent, with the material Crosse, of wood, stone, brasse, or anie out­ward sensible substance. For these having once gottē the opinion of Deity, to reside in thē, expose themselues to be adored by the vulgar sort, no lesse, and in no inferiour degree, then the Serpent did. But when you extend your comparison, to match the immateriall consignatiō of the Crosse in Baptisme, with the materiall brasen Serpent, your comparison holdeth not correspondency, as in the former. For there is great difference, betweene this con­signation, and those other Crosses: so that, wherein this is different, from them, therein also it must needs bee diffe­rent from the brasen Serpēt. From those other Crosses, and so consequently, from the brasen Serpent, this con­signation of the Crosse in Baptisme, doth differ, First in matter: they materiall, and sensible, this immateriall & in­sensible. Secondly, in the end, they made perhaps, and fra­med of purpose to be receptacles of divine worship, this only to serue for a signe of remembrance, being therefore iustly to be reckoned among those things, Quae pertinent [Page 75] ad [...] & [...]; Bucer in script. Angl. pag. 454. which belong to order and de­cency: Because it admonisheth the rude people of their duty, and calleth men to a remembrance, of that obedi­ence, that they owe to God, by a manifest and special sig­nification, wherby the Church is edified. Thirdly, in the abuse, they abused in as high a degree of superstition, as the Serpent was, this only abused in erroneous opinion, and conceipt of vertue, and power, falsly ascribed vnto it. And fourthly in redresse, they no waies cureable, but by demolition, this curable by informing the vnderstanding aright, & teaching the ignorant, that we repose no power and vertue in it, nor yeeld any divine worship vnto it, but vse it only as an admonisher, & remēbrancer of our Chri­stian duties: and therefore you must not argue, that be­cause those material Crosses were as offensiue as the bra­sen Serpent, therefore this immateriall consignatiō must needes be so. You shall doe better to distinguish them in name, calling them, as they are indeede, Crosses, and this the consignation of the Crosse: then to confound them in nature, or suffer your selfe to be deceived by the name, as if what things soeuer agree in name, must of necessity a­gree in superstition, and Idolatry.

Lastly concerning your marginal note, that God no where cōmanded the retaining of the brasen Serpent; we answer, nether doth he any where forbid it: & J make no doubt, but had it not bin abused to superstition, it might without offence to God, haue beene retained, though he gaue no expresse commandement so to do. And he that considers, what great prerogatiues the brasen Serpent had, wil (I suppose) be of the same opinion. For it was erected, not by mans, but by Gods direct commandement. Jt was adorned and commended, with a most famous and [Page 76] memorable miracle: Jt was a monumēt of a very strāge and extraordinary cure: Jt had continued a long time, & might almost alleadge Prescription, why it should be re­tained stil: Jt was a type and figure of Christs exaltation on the Crosse, as himselfe expoundeth it: As Moses lift vp the brasen Serpent in the wildernes: Ioh. 3.14. so must the sonne of man be lifted vp, &c.

But what woulde you inferre vpon the not retaining of the brasen Serpent? That we should not retaine the vse of the Crosse in Baptisme? But this our Church hath enioyned, and commanded, whose commādement, we are bound in conscience to obay, so long as it commaundeth nothing contrary to the word, & will of God. For howso­ever you & your consorts reiect obedience, yet we take it not our duties so to doe. Lawes made by the Church, of things indifferent (as Mr. Beza told you a litle before) doe so far binde the conscience,Beza epist. 24. ad 5. 6. 7. & 8. Num. 9. that no man wittingly, and willingly, and with a purpose of resisting (take heede Mr. Treatiser this clause cōclude not many of your Bro­therhood) may without sin, either do those things which are so forbidden, or omit those things which are so com­manded.Calv. Jnsi. lib. [...]. c. 10 par. 6. 31 Christiani populi of ficium est (saith Mr. Calvin) quae secundum hunc canonem (in quo charitas moderatrix est) fuerint instituta, &c. Jt is the duty of Christiā peo­ple to obserue and keepe those lawes that shal be made, according to this rule, (meaning where charity is the Moderatrix as he said before) with a free conscience in­deede, and no superstition, but with a godly and readie propension to obedience. Neither must they haue them in contempt, not by carelesse negligence omit them: much lesse through pride and stubbornnesse openly vi­olate and resist thē. Where, by the way, let it trouble no [Page 77] man, that Mr. Beza saith conscientias ligant, Mr. Calvin saith, libera quidem conscientia. For Mr. Beza in his bind­ing of the cōscience, hath respect vnto the obedience that is due vnto the authority, Mr Caluin in his freedome of the Conscience, hath reference to that estimation we should haue of the things, not to thinke otherwise of them then of things indifferent, though commanded by authority: to which purpose Mr. Bucer also speaketh,Bucer in script. Angl. pag. 454. has etsi seruare & omittere etiam extra scandalum licet, tamē si ex proternia aut petulantia quis ordinem, publica auto­ritate constitutum contemnat & turbet, non leuiter peccat. These Ceremonies though it be lawful to obserue or o­mitt, where no scandall is offered, yet if any man vpon frowardnes or wantonnes, shal cōtemne, or disquiet the order, that is established by publike authority, he sinneth greiuously. And let this suffice for answere to your exam­ple of the brasen Serpent, and second point of difference.

Your third point of difference J take to be, The bread in the supper, is warranted in the scripture. The Crosse in Baptisme hath no warrāt in the word, For howsoeuer Bel­larmine would insinuate, &c.

The former of these, That the bread in the supper is warranted in the Scripture, we know right wel: to the latter that the signe of the Crosse is not warranted we an­swere first, that it is no where in the Scripture forbidden. Secondly, Non requiritur necessariò, Pet. Mart. in Ep 4. ad Hop­perum. vt in sacris litteris expressam mentionem exhibeamus, singularū rerūquas v­surpamus. Thirdly, that though in expresse words it be not warranted, yet virtually, fundamentally, and in suo principio, it is even in the Scriptures cōprehended. The principle, and foundation that J meane, is, that generall precept of the Apostle concerning things indifferent. Let [Page 78] all things be done decently and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. in the generallity wherof this particular is contained, as by the deduction before mentioned in the answere, to the Minor of your maine Syllogisme, may plainly appeare; Lastly concern­ing Bellarmins insinuation, that the Crosse is grounded &c: we stande not vpon it, nor build our opinion vpon any proofe of his. Yet, as it is certaine that the materiall Crosse,Ioh. 3.14. wherevpon Christ suffered, was shaddowed by the pole, whervpon the brasen Serpent was lifted vp (for so our Savior himselfe doth resemble it) so I see not what inconvenience can follow,Aug. de catech. rudibus cap. 20. Cyprian ad De­ [...]et. cap. 19. if we should say with St. Au­gustine, and St. Cyprian, that evē this our immateriall cō ­signation, did take his first beginning and occasion in the primitiue Church, vpon the signing of the Israelites dore posts, Exod. 12.7. with the bloud of the Pascall Lambe: or by the sig­ning of thē that mourne in their foreheads with the mark of the letter T. or by Iacobs blessing of Ephraim and Ma­nasses with his hands a crosse, Ezech. 9.4. Gen. 48.14. wherby as Musculus obser­veth,Wolf. Muscul in Gen. cap. 48. Adumbrabatur mysterium Crucis, in quo est omnis verae benedictionis fons & origo. But al this we yeeld vnto you, and embrace with you Tertullians iudgement, that this is established by no other warrant, then by the au­thoritie of the Church, the weight wherof you haue suffi­ciently hard of before. But now let vs heare the second part of your answere, to our first obiection.

Treatise. 9. Sect.

Now it is farther to bee noted, that a double vse of the Crosse is mentioned in antiquity: one civill, & the other re­ligious, against the former wee doe not dispute, yeelding all reverence to those Christians, which by that note shewed their reioicing and glory in that, which the heathen coun­ted their shame. But now, that abuse hath turned the Image and signe of the Crosse, into an Idoll, it seemeth therby to be [Page 79] made execrable. For Gideons Ephod being first a ciuill mo­nument of victory, when the people went a whoring after it, was it lawfull for the Magistrat, to erect in the Taber­nacle or Sinagogue, though not the same yet the like, both in name & forme to any religious vse? VVould it haue suf­ficed to haue said, this is not the same Ephod, that Israel maketh an Idoll of, neither is it set here to bee worshipped (for your brethren doe grievously sin therin) but only to keep in minde the great victorie that God by Gedeon gaue to Israell? Right so the Crosse vsed by the ancients to shevve that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, being meer­ly civill, and yet expressing a most Christian resolution, ha­ving bin abused, yea continuing to be worshipped, both in Imagine & in Signo, It seemeth that this filth hath made it vnfit, on any pretence of restoring it to his ancient vse, to be annexed to the holy things of the Sanctuary. Especial­ly while there are so many Papistes, that superstitiously a­buse it among vs. Now for the religious vse of the Crosse, by the ancients, it was never free from sin and superstition, as afterwards is shewed, and if it were, yet it being an hu­mane ordinance and now not only abused to Idolatrie, but becōming it selfe a most abominable Idol, no water cā clēse it, nor any pretext purifie it, for the holy seruice of Iehouah

Replie to the second part of the Treatisers answere.

The Treatisers maine forces are spent already, in the first part of his answere, All these things that follow are nothing else but, leuis armaturae milites, his light horsmē and florishes, to make the number of his argumentes seeme the greater. Jn this Section he telleth vs of a two­fold vse of the Crosse mentioned in antiquity, one Ciuill, the other Religious. This we acknowledge to be true. The [Page 80] vse was held of thē, as a Trophee, & publike Monument, of that great victory which God gaue to Constantine a­gainst Maxentius. For which cause Constantine, at the first made the signe of the Crosse in his imperiall banner, stamped it vpon his Coines, graued it in his statues, & I­mages, and in the armor of his Soldiers: And the like hath bin vsed by all Christian Princes ever since. Secondly, as an ornamēt in story, or outward beautifiing of any thing: Thirdly, as an outward marke of distinction frō the hea­then Jdolaters, wherby in their common meetings, and intercourse of life, they made it knowne, as well to the Jnfidels, as to one another, that they were Christians, & no waies ashamed of the Crosse of Christ.

The religious vse they made of the Crosse, consisted more privatly, in a mutual reference towards thēselues, and was frequented, First in their actions of cōmon life, still to excite their devotion, to admonish them of their duties, and put them in minde of Christ crucified. Mu­niantur aures, Cyp. ep. ad Thi­ [...]ar. cap. 8. ne audiant edicta feralia. Muniantur oculi ne videant detestanda simulacra. Muniatur frons, vt signū Dei incolume seruetur. Muniaturos, vt dominū suū lingua victrix tucatur: as Cypriā speaketh. ad omnē progressū at (que) promotū, Tertull de coron mil. cap. 3. &c. as Tertullian declareth, They vsed to mark their foreheads with the sign of the Crosse, at every mo­ving, and stirring of their bodies, as they went out, as they came home, as they put on their cloathes, pulled on their shooes, and as they washed; at table, and at can­dle-lighting, going to bed, and sitting downe, & general­ly in every particular action of their life. Secondly, they v­sed the signe of the Crosse, in the Sacramēt of Baptisme, as we doe now, for a present admonition, and memoratiue token, continually to put vs in minde of our duty & pro­fession, [Page 81] which in that Sacrament we vndertake. J haue therfore the more particularly mentioned these diffe­rences, that J may the better expresse this point to the vnderstanding of the Reader.

Concerning therfore the ciuill vse of the Crosse, a­mong the Auncients, the Treatiser deliuereth vs these oracles.

1 That he will not dispute against the ciuill vse, & yet he tells vs, that now by abuse, it is turned to an Idoll.

2 He yeelds al reuerence to those Christians, which by that note shewed their reioycing, and glory, in that which the Heathen counted their shame: Yet withall he saith, Jt is made execrable.

3 He saith, the Auncients, to shew that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, expressed therby a most Christian resolution: But withal he addeth, By the filth which it hath since contracted, it is made vnfit on any pretence to be restored to his auncient vse, & to be an­nexed to the holy things of the Sanctuary.

Touching these his speeches, as we willingly embrace that, wherin he commendeth the Auncients, (which is a thing very rare among that generatiō) so we would al­so free our selues, that tread only in their steps, and vse it no worse then they did, from those imputations of making it an Idoll, execrable, and a filth, which the Trea­tiser doth lay vpon vs, if not as Authors, yet at the least as Abettors.

And therfore leauing their religious vse, to his place, because the Treatiser speaketh these things only of the Ciuill vse: J would faine learne, which of those Ciuil vses mentioned before, we haue thus greiuously abused. Jf he say the first vse in Banners, Coines, Statues, Sect. 2. Armor & [Page 82] such like, or the second, in matter of History, or outward ornament, or beautifiing of any thing, himselfe is farre more faulty, then any of vs. For of the former he hath yeelded before, that in Princes Banners, Coronations, Coyne, Crownes, or in any other Ciuill respect, it may haue a lawful vse: yea, though it be apparantly an Idoll. And touching the latter he maketh no question, but that it may be made and retained, though it be of an Image, euen such an Image as is Idolatrously worshipped. Nei­ther can J possibly see, how we haue made an Idoll, exe­cration and filth of their thirde ciuill vse, wherby they made it a note of distinction, from the Infidells. For that is the very point, for the which, in this place he so com­mendeth the Auntients, yeelding al reuerence to those Christians &c. & againe, They haue expressed a most Christiā resolutiō: &c. So that except the Treatiser haue some other Ciuil vses, of the Auntients in store, that we know not of, we cannot be persuaded, that we retaine any Civill vse of theirs as an Idoll, execrable, and a filth, either in the Image, or in the signe.

But yet he proueth it by the example of Gideons E­phod. For Gideons Ephod, saith hee, being first &c. J take the force of his reason to be this.

That good ciuill vse of any thing that is abused, and continueth to be worshipped both in Imagine, & in sig­no: is made an Idoll, execrable, and a filth. This he prou­eth by the example of Gideons Ephod.

But the good ciuill vse of the Crosse among the Aun­tients, is abused & cōtinueth to be worshipped, both in Imagine et in signo. This he taketh to be proued by the practise of so many Papists, as do superstitiously abuse it among vs. Ergo,

[Page 83]The good ciuill vse of the Crosse among the Aunti­ents is made an Idoll, execrable, and a filth.

The maior I grant to be true, not simplicitèr, but secū ­dum quid that is, only there, and among them only, that doe abuse the good civill vse, and continue worshipping of it, both in Imagine, and in signo. Jn them, and to them it is indeede an Idoll, execrable, & a filth. But what is that to others, that neither abuse it nor worshippe it?Tit. 1.15. To the cleane, saith the Apostle, all things are cleane, but to them that are defiled, and vnbeleeving, nothing is cleane, but e­ven their mindes, & consciences are defiled. Shall the sins of one man, thinke you, be laid vpon another?Ezech. 18.20. God hath promised no. Anima quae peccaverit ipsa morietur, The soule that sinneth that shall die; The sonne shal not beare the iniquity of the father, nether shal the father bear the iniquity of the sonne. Your perpetuall harping on one string, frō secūdum quid, to simpliciter, maketh that your musicke is nothing pleasant, as J haue tolde you often before.

Touching the proofe of your Maior, by the example of Gideons Ephod, which you say, beeing first a civill mo­nument of victory, &c. J answere, that it was not only a civill monument, and therefore your cōparing of it with the civill vses of the signe of the Crosse, among the An­cients, is vnfit.

And that it was not only a civill monument, besides St. Augustines authority,Aug. quaest. in Iudic. quaest. 41 the very name and nature of the E­phod, which he made, doth plainly teach. For what else is an Ephod, but that most glorious & beautifull vpper gar­ment, which the high Priest ware in the celebration of divine sacrifices?P. Mart. in hunc locum. Potuisset carmen vt Barac & Debora cō ­scribere, vel columnam erigere aut quippiam simile. If hee [Page 84] intended a civil monument only, why made he choice of an Ephod? Jf besides the civil remembrance of his victo­ry, he also intended the service of God (as St. Augustine iudgeth) thē was it not only for a civil monument. Now that the service of God, was also in his intention, not on­ly the name of an Ephod, Gedeon illud Ephod Pōtificale & pretiolum confecit. Pet. Mart. Quo nomine omnia possunt intelli­gi, quae constituit Gedeon in sua civitate, velut ad colendū Deum, similia tabernaculo Dei, ea locutione quae significat à parte totum, propter excellentiam vestis Sacerdotalis, By which name all things may be vnderstood that Gedeon e­rected in his cittie, as to worship God, like the taberna­cle of God, by that manner of speech called Synecdoche, which by a part doth signifie the whole, for the excellen­cie of the Priests garment) but the scripture also seemeth to cōvince.Iudg. 8.27. For there it is said, That al Jsrael went a who­ring after it. And that it was the destruction of Gedeon & his house How could it be to his destruction if he meant it not to the service of God?

Gedeons sin then was, not that hee erected a civill mo­numēt only,August. as you saie, but Quod extra Dei tabernaculū, fecit aliquid simile, vbi coleretur Deus. But because with­out the Tabernacle of God hee made some like thinges, where God should be worshipped: which was plainly a­gainst the will of God, who had appointed his worship, to bee frequented no where, but where the Arke of the Covenant was, which at that time was in Silo.

2. J say that there is no iust comparison betweene Ge­deons Ephod, and the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme. For the end of Gedeons Ephod was, either for Gods seruice, (& thē it was faulty, as is said before,) & so is not the Crosse with vs: or else (to make the best of it, and to graunt you your owne interpretation) it was, that the memorie of [Page 85] Gods benefit towards him in his victory, might not be a­bolished, and then the signe, which hee vsed, was not fit, not agreeable to the matter. For,Pet. Mart. in hunc locum. Deus non mandaverat in lege, vt fieret Ephod in istum vsum, sed tantum vt sa­cerdotes cum sacrificaturi essent, illud induerent: Signo igi­tur minus dextero & opportuno vsus est. God did not cō ­mande in the law, that an Ephod should bee made to this vse, but only that the Priests should weare it, when they were sacrificing; wherefore hee vsed a signe not so com­modious, nor so fit. But our signe of the Crosse in Bap­tisme, is most fit, and natural, and agreeable to the actiō, to signifie the end, which we intende thereby, which is not so much to imprint a memorie of Gods benefite to­wards vs, as to remember & admonish our selues of that dutie, which in Baptisme wee promised vnto God.

3. To your questiō. VVas it lawful for the Magistrate, &c. I may as wel aske you. Was it not lawful for the Ma­gistrate so to doe? Or if that Ephod were vnlawful, was no Ephod to be vsed in Gods service afterwards?

4. As touching, that you say; The signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, among the Ancients was meerely civil, I an­swere, that you haue heard before, that it was some waie religious, though they reposed no religion in it. For those vses that they made of it, To be a signe of their professiō of Christian religion, To bee a token that they were not ashamed of the Crosse of Christ. To be a testimony evē before Jdolaters; That they put their hope & cōfidence in Christ crucified: are rather to be counted religious, in my vnderstanding, then only and meerely civil, as you cō ­ceiue of them.

Your minor proposition offendeth in the same capti­on that your maior doth. For say that the good civil vse of [Page] [...] [Page 87] [...] [Page 86] the Crosse is abused & worshipped by the Papists, what is that to vs?Pet. Mart. ep. 4. ad Hopperum. Indifferentia non possunt illos, qui pura since­ra (que) agunt mente, & conscientia, contaminare, why I pray you may not we vse that well, which they vsed ill? As wel as an Orthodox writer may vse the same Logick & Rhe­toricke, to proue the truth, which Heretickes doe to op­pugne the truth?Aug cont. Cres­con. Gramma. lib 1. cap. 1. Or an honest Souldier vse those weapōs in defence of his coūtry, which Rebels and Traytors vse for the destruction and desolation thereof, as was before alleadged out of St. Augustine. Your proofe holdeth wel for the materiall signe, and for the superstitious conceipt of the Crosse in Baptisme, but that they adored them as an Idoll, remaineth yet to be proved.

Cōcerning the religious vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, he saith two things.

First that among the Ancients, it was never free frō sin, and superstition: Secondly if it were, yet being a hu­mane ordinance, and abused, & made a most abhomina­ble Idoll, no water can clense it &c.

Touching the first, which of their religious vses doe you meane? Jf that which they holde in their actions of common life; we neither commend it, nor condemne it; we condemne it not, because we suppose it may be well vsed, when it is done, only to excite, and put vs in minde of Christ crucified, without any conceite of vertue or meritt, or power therin reposed, as we verily thinke the Auncients vsed it;Hem. in cap. 5. ep. 1. Joan. Qui mane surgens & vesperi cubitam vadens, signat se cruce, in signum Christianae militiae, con­tra Satanam, nō est culpandus, modo absit superstitio. We commend it not, because we knowe how apt the com­mon people are, to be led away with that misconceipt, that so long hath clouen vnto it: And yet we cā no waies [Page 87] allow of yours, nor of your Patriarch T. C. iudgment,Sect. 13. T. C. lib. 1. pag. 170. wherwith be censureth it. That the Lord hath left a mark of his curse vpon it, wherby it might be perceiued to come out of the forge of mans braine &c. This censure of his is too perēptory, & offendeth not only against the rule of Charity, that bids vs thinke the best of them, whom we knowe not, especially of the Auntients; but of Iustice also: In that he laieth the fault, of superstitious succee­ding ages, vppon the religious and godly Fathers, that were before them. For why might not that be without abuse at the first, which we are certaine,P. Martyr in cap. 7. Judic. Beza de notis Eccles. Cathol. was greatly a­bused afterwards, aswel as the sepulchers of Martirs, & reliques of Saints, and the Images of Christ, and his A­postles, al which had a good vse at the first, and yet af­terwards where occasions of hainous Idolatry and su­perstition.

Yf you meane their religious vse of the signe of the Crosse in the Sacrament of Baptism, we vtterly disclaime your sentence, and doubt not but that it was free from sinn, and superstition, both in the Auntients, and in our Church. And to this your rash and inconsiderate con­demning of the Auntient Fathers, and by them vs, we oppose the more temperate and indifferent opinions, of your owne freinds; who by how much they were more learned then your selfe, so much the more modest, and respectiue they were of Antiquity, then are you. And because you shal not thinke, that J wil peruert or falsifie their meanings by my interpretation, J wil set downe their speaches in their owne words, as J find them in their writings.

Mr Beza doth both grant, by way of Cōcession,Beza respons ad Franc. Baldwin. that there might be a good vse of it in the Primitiue Church [Page 88] Fuerit sanè tempus, quo fuit aliquis istius signaculi, aduer­sus Christi crucifixi contemptores vsus: sit etiam diu et libentèr a Christianis vsurpatus, pro externa verae religi­onis professione, Beza de Eccle. catho. notis. & also in expresse words affirme, Crucis consignationem, cōstat initio fuisse apertam Christianis­mi professionem.

Hemingius deliuering certaine obseruations & con­ditions, how the signe of the Crosse may in these daies be wel vsed in the Church, concludeth with this testi­mony of Antiquity.Heming. in ep. 1. Joan. cap. 5. His rationibus existimo vsos esse signo crucis Augustinum, Epiphanium, Athanasium, qui multū signaculo crucis tribuerunt, propter significationē et admonitionem.

Bucers testimony to this purpose is most famous, that it was,Bucer in ordin. Eccles. cap. 12. vsus in Ecclesia antiquissimi, admodum simplex, et praesentis admonitionis crucis Christi.

Pezel. in Refut [...]ech. Iesuit. Pezelius speaketh more plainly in their commenda­tion, Antiqui hoc signo profitebantur, quòd Christiani es­sent quód crucis Christi eos non puderet, quód in Christo spem, et fiduciam omnem collocatam haberent.

Daneus respon. ad Bellar. cont. 7. ad cap. 29. Daneus yet goeth further, and saith Finis propter quē Patres laudes istas signo crucis Christi tribuunt, sanctus et pius est: Patres enim illas laudes scribunt de signo cru­cis quatenus est, et erat confessionis Christianorum intre­pidae de Christo testimonium, liberum, apertum, mani­festum, licet illis propterea minarentur Ethnici panas grauissimas. Erat igitur huius signi inter Ethnicos vsur­patio, confessio de Christo crucifixo pulcherrima. &c.

Mr. Perkins not only excuseth it from superstition in the Ancients, Perkinsus in Demonst. prob. cap. de signo [...]is [...]um. 2. but also declareth, as Daneus did, wherin it was iustly commended by the fathers. His wordes are these. Crux non fuit à veteribus adorata, multò minus la­triâ [Page 89] adorata: veneratio tantùm ei tributa fuit, id est v­sus cum reuerentia, eam (que) vsurparunt in testimonium fidei suae, simul (que) laudant quatenus fuit signum intrepidae fidei in Christum crucifixum ante ethnicos, etiam dum illi paenas minarentur.

Zanchius speaking of the vse of this signe in Constan­tines time, freeth al the former ages from superstition,Zanch. de oper. Redem. l. 1. c. 15. Huc vs (que) nihil superstitionis habebat signum illud.

Lastly Goulartius speaketh more plainly in this point,Goulart. in Cyp. ad Demet. cap. 19. then any other, Quamuis veteres Christiani (saith he) externo signo crucis vsi sunt, idtamen fuit sine aliqua su­perstitione; et doctrina de Christi merito, ab errore, qui postea irrepsit, pios seruavit immunes. And in another place. Tertulliani saeculo, et aliquot sequentibus, Idem in Cypr. Ep. 56. ad Thi­baritanos, ca. 7. Christi­anicum Ethnicis Christum crucifixum deridentibus per­mixti, vt doctrinae salutaris, quae in Christū nos credere iubet, se minime pudere testaerentur, digitis in aere forma­bant figuram transuersam quasi crucis, quae Cerimonia tunc erat Christianismi, non superstitionis Magicae, (vt postea accidit,) symbolum.

That it might once haue had good vse, and was a pro­fession of Christianity, as Mr. Beza speaketh, Or that St. Augustine, and other Auntients vsed it with such due regard, as therto belonged, as Hemingius thinketh, Or that it was a most auntient vse in the Church, very sim­ple, and of present admonition of the Crosse of Christ, as Bucer testifieth: to my vnderstanding doth plainly des­cribe, a most Christian and religious vse of it, among the Auntients, and vtterly discouer your slaunderous ac­cusation.

But those other that tel you particularly, wherin it was wel vsed, as Pezel. M. Perk. & by a proposition most ma­nifestly [Page 90] contradictory vnto yours, say, it had a most holy and godly end, as Daneus, and that it was without any su­perstition in the Auntients, as Goulartius, & Zanchius doe, They J say plainly free it from sinn and superstitiō, and with a contrary testimony in flatt termes, conuince the insolency, and audaciousnes of your false asseue­ration.

Touching the second. if it were: yet being an humane ordinance &c. your two reasons, because it is an humane ordinance abused, and because it is now also become an I­doll, are answered before. And it hath oftentimes bin said that those pollutions how abhominable soeuer, doe extend them selues no farther, then to the Persons that are polluted with them: Jndifferent things cannot de­file them, that vse them with a sincere minde, and pure conscience, how soeuer they be abused by others:

And therfore you might wel haue spared your huge words, Execrable, abhominable Idoll, filth, no water cā clense it, nor any pretext purifie it, &c. except you had brought other arguments then these, the weaknes wher of doth most manifestly appeare. Al the bigg words, that you can bring, wil not make the vncleannes, you speake of, defi [...]e the Innocent, nor the pollution, and abhomi­nation of Popish Idolatry, cleaue vnto the true Protestāt, that with a good conscience, vseth the Ceremony, and with hart and soule, abhorreth the superstition. And thus much to the second part of your answere. Your third followeth now to be considered.

Treatise. 10. Sect.

But in very deed to speake as the truth is, the Crosse is re­tained among vs, Canon. 30. with opinion very superstitious, & erro­neous. For in the late Canons it is saide, that the Childe is [Page 91] thereby dedicated vnto the service of him that died on the Crosse: what is this but to equal mans ordinance with Gods? And to ascribe that vnto the Crosse, which is due vnto Baptisme? A conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists, then learned Christians to assent vnto. Neither do we vse it as the An­cients did, for Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostome and o­thers, as is apparant at those times did consecrate the e­lements therewith, and did not crosse the childes forehead at all, but referred that vnto the Bishops confirmation; So that our crossing the Infants forehead, & not the element of Baptisme, is a meere novelty, without any warrant of that antiquitie. Neither will that place of Tertullian de resurrectione carnis proue the contrary. The flesh is wa­shed, that the soule may bee purged, the flesh is annoin­ted, that the soule may be consecrated, the flesh is signed that the soule may be garded, the flesh is shaddowed by the imposition of hands, that the soule may be by the spi­rit enlightned, the flesh doth feede on the body & bloud of Christ, that the soule may be filled and fatted of God. In which words, he ioining togither divers Ceremonies of the Christians, doth indeed mētiō the signing of the faith­full, but it may as well be referred to confirmatiō, expressed by imposition of hands, as to Baptisme, vnderstoode by the washing of the body; & that on better reason for it is more then probable, that the signe of the Crosse was not yet vsed in Baptisme, seeing, Just. Martyr in defens. ad Antoni­num & Tertull. de Baptismo, & de corona militis, doe des­cribe the forme of Baptisme, vsed in those times, and yet make no mention of the Crosse therein: which in all likely­hood they would not haue omitted, if it had bin vsed there­in; Especially Tertullian, who in that very place speaketh of the Crosse, as vsed out of Baptisme in the ordinary blessing of themselues.

Replie to the third part of the Treatisers answere to the first obiection.

This tenth Section containeth two grievous accusa­tions, wherewith the Treatiser doth charge our Church, and the governors thereof.

The first, That the signe of the Crosse is retained among vs, with opinion very superstitious and erroneous.

The second, That we doe not vse it as the Ancients did: Grievous crimes no doubt, if they be iustly laid vpon vs; But if vniustly, then meere reproaches, and slanders of the Treatiser.

Touching the first. S. Hierome saith, In causa haerese­os nemixem decetesse patientem. Jt becommeth no ma to hold patience, when he is accused of heresie. The Treati­ser belike, meant to trie our patience, when he burdened vs with opinion of the Crosse both erroneous and supersti­tious. Jf he had accused vs of error only, the matter had not bin so very great. For, homines sumus, errare possumus: we are men and therefore subiect vnto errour. And yet here also he might haue remembred, that the companie of those l [...]arned men that made the Canon, was as vn­likely to erre, as either the Treatiser or his adherents. But whē vnto his accusation of error, he addeth the most hei­nous crime of superstition, this is such an imputation, as whereof by all good meanes we are bound to cleare our selues.

But he proveth it: for in the late Canons, it is said, that the child is therby dedicated vnto the service of him, that died on the Crosse, what is this but to equall mans ordināce with Gods? And to ascribe that vnto the Crosse, which is due vnto Baptisme? A conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians to assent vnto. If wee assented ei­ther [Page 93] to the one or to the other, it were indeede not onlie a conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists, then learned Christi­ans, but also an opinion erroneous and superstitious, and which is more, prowd, insolent, and presumptious too.

But how doth the word dedicated, inforce thus much: namely, because the Sacrament, which is Gods ordinance, can doe no more but Dedicate the Infant, to the service of him that died on the Crosse. And therefore when wee saie, the signe of the Crosse, which is but mans invention, doeth Dedicate, doe we not equallmans ordinance with Gods? & ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto the Sacra­ment? J answere, no: For first the Sacrament doth more then dedicate only, for it really giueth that which it promi­seth, & is to the child that, which it doth signifie. Cōtrari­wise, the Crosse, neither giueth any thing to the child, nor promiseth, nor is any other thing, then an outward Cere­mony only, signifying that the child hereafter should not be ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ crucified &c.

Secondly, the word Dedicate doth not alwaies signi­fie, to sanctifie or to Consecrate, but somtimes to appro­priate, to appoint to some special vse, to declare and tes­tifie, that the thing is assigned, addicted, and called out to such, for such a seueral purpose, office person, or ser­uice. And this is most manifest, by that vse of this word, which is most ordinary and common in our speach: As namely to dedicate a book to a great personage, is not in in our language to consecrate, & sanctifie it vnto him, but by that word of Dedication, we testifie and declare our loue, duty, & affection towards him, & appoint the book so dedicated, to be a manifest signe, token, proofe, argument, and declaration of our loue. The word Dedi­cated therfore being Ecclesiasticall, and very frequent in [Page 94] this signification, it was thought fitt to be retained in this matter, rather then to take in a word more strang & nothing so significant: Especially considering, that ther are many words, and sentences in that Canon, both af­firmatiue and negatiue, very sufficient to declare, and make manifest vnto al reasonable men, that the Church of England doeth not attribute any sanctifiing, or con­secrating of the child to the seruice of Christ, vnto any vertue, grace, or power, of, or in the signe of the Crosse.

Thirdly though both the Sacrament, and the signe of the Crosse may be said to dedicate, yet they doe not both dedicate after the same sort, for the Sacrament doth de­dicate as a signe, and as a Sacrament too, the Crosse as a signe or ceremony only, the Sacrament doth dedicate as a cause efficient instrumentall, working inwardly, by the o­peration of Gods spirite, the Crosse doth dedicate as a cause declaratory, testimonial, witnessing outwardly to the Church, and to the partie that is baptized. And so much the very wordes of the Canon woulde haue taught you, but that you would not learne, when it saith, Accounting it a lawfull outward Ceremony, and honorable badge, wher­by the Infant is dedicated, &c.

The wearing of a badge, or cognizance of some noble man, or the colours of some Captaine, doth not, J hope, in your apprehension, make the servant or souldior that weareth it, to be of such a noble mans retinew, or such a captaines regiment. But because he is of that retinewe, he weareth that badge or cognizance, and because hee is of that regimēt, he weareth those colours. And yet both the one and the other, doth make other men to know, & withall doth put himselfe in remembrance, that such a noble mans man, or such a captaines souldior hee is, and [Page 95] such he ought to shew himselfe to be. Even so it is in the matter of the Crosse. The signe of the Crosse maketh not the childe to be the servant, or souldior of Christ, but because by Baptisme he is so made, therfore he is signed with that honorable badge, that thereby, both other mē may know that he is the servant, and souldiour of Christ,Declaratorie quoad alios, memorativè, et monitoriè quo­ad scipsum. and himselfe may be remembred, and admonised, that he is in al his life to shew himselfe as the faithfull servant of such a master, and the couragious souldiour of such a captaine: Which our Communion book most wisely, & beyond all exception of malice, setteth downe in these religious tearmes. In token that he shall not be ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight vnder his banner, against sin, the world, and the Divel, and to continue his faithfull souldiour and servant vnto his liues end.

Lastly, if the Canon should haue said, sanctified, or cō ­secrated, I perceiue, we should haue had much a do with the Treatiser: And yet al Antiquity, as afterwards I shal haue better occasion to declare,Aug. de peccat. meritis & re­missione, lib. 2. cap. 26. and specially St. Augustine teacheth vs so to say. Catechumenos, saith he, secun­dum quendam modum suum per signum Christi, & orationē manus impositionis, puto sanctificari. J thinke the Cate­chumeni are sanctified, after a certaine manner of theirs, by the signe of Christ, and praier of laying on of handes. But what neede J alleadge St. Augustine, our owne men vse the word consecrare to signifie, to allot, or appoint for some vse, as I told you before the word dedicare did sig­nifie: As may appeare at large by the testimony of Gou­lartius, Consecrare panem & vinum, Goulart. Cap. ep. 63. num. 39. est ea divinis ac sa­cris vsibus destinare, &c. But our Canon of purpose de­clined those words, which might any waies breed offēce [Page 96] vnto the weake brethren, and made choice of this harm­lesse and innocent word, Dedicated, which favorably vn­derstood, giueth no offence, and is farr from al such dan­ger of error & superstition, as the Treatiser woulde make the ignorant reader to beleeue.

Your second accusation laieth two greiuous Corrup­tions to our charge, as namely.

1 That in the sign of the Crosse we doe not that which the Auntients did. For Cyprian Augustine, Chrysostome, and others, as is apparant, at those times did consecrate the e­lements therewith, which wee doe not.

2 That we doe that which the Auntients did not: For they did not crosse the childs forhead at all, but referred that vnto the Bishopps confirmation: So that our crossing the Infants forehead, & not the element of Baptisme, is a meere nouelty, (of some 600. yeares standing as you say in the Margent) without any warrant of that antiquity.

For answer to the first. That we do not al that the An­tients did, that is, not vse the signe of the Crosse to so many purposes, as they did, we do easily acknowledge: But this is nothing to the point in question. For what if this particular you alleadge, of consecrating the Element with the sign of the Crosse, were one of those Naeui of the Ancients? What if they, haply, did amisse in so doing, as you say afterwards they did? Or what if they did well in so doing, & the superstitiō was brought in afterwards? Will you haue vs to imbrace their vices as well as their vertues? Or wil you take away the liberty of our Church in making choice of her Ceremonies? Or will you hence conclude, that we may not retaine their good things, for the which they are worthely commended, except we al­so receiue those defectes and imperfections, which suc­ceeding [Page 97] ages brought in afterwardes? But this is no way agreeable to reasō: I rather think it better to follow that coūsel that St. Hierom giueth, of reading Origens works,Hieron. ad Trā. qutll l. 1. ep. 54. and to apply it to this matter of the Ceremonies of the Auntients, Vt bona eorum eligamus, vitemus (que) cōtraria, iuxta Apostolum dicentem, omnia probate, quod bonum est 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 plerum (que) flagitat, vt cum aliqui dicant, non recte fieri, simutetur, contra veritas clamet, rectè non fieri nisi mute­turiquia vtrum (que) 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 mā ­hood, 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 [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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 Sacramēt or seale hauing the forme of a Crosse; And describing the māner how it was done, he saith, Imponit (minister) eius capiti manum, cōsignans (que) illum, sacerdotibus mādat, virum susceptorem (que) describant. This authority must needs be vnderstood of Baptisme, which he there de­scr [...]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, consignans (que) 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 confirmatiō 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, shalbe cōsidered afterwards) who [Page 102] 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, cōvertamus 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 rursū operi­bus se inseruit meis (que) 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 vpō me to repeate thē al, (for they are very many,) so it cānot 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 [Page 103] 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. orbem (que) dimensus est ut iam tum ostē ­deret, ab ortu solis vs (que) ad occasum, magnum populum ex omnibus linguis, & tribubus congregatū, sub alas suas esse venturum, signum (que) illud maximum at (que) 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 traditiōs 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 suū Chri­stus in fronte nobis figi voluit, tanquam in sede pudoris, ne Christi opprobrio Christianus erubescat. To the which purpose he speaketh in Psalm. 141. vs (que) adeo de cruce non erubesco vt non in occulto loco habeam crucē 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 [Page 104] 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 sacramēti administratio­ne, simplex ritus; and with Pezelius. vetus est haec Cere­monia ab ipsis incunabilis Ecclesiae Christianae vsurpata.

The collection therfore of the Treatiser is vaine, whē 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 did.

For first, touching the forme, it is a Sophisme com­pounded of all manner of Fallacies. that which is most apparant is, Fallacia compositionis: for ex propositione ve­râ in sensu composito, infert conclusionem falsam in sen­su dinisio. Touching the matter, it is meerly false. For in the Maior it doth assume, that the Auntients did not vse to signe the Childs forehead, which is refuted by their alleadged authorities.

Secondly he doth conclude the abuse of one Ceremo­ny, by the Non vse of another, which hath neither rela­tion vnto it, nor dependency on it, nor both are ordained to the same end: & therfore the one cannot necessarily inferre the negation or affirmation of the other: as if [Page 105] with lesse adoe. and in fewer circumstances, he should haue concluded thus.

  • They that in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Bap­tisme, doe not vse consecration of the Element at all doe not vse the consignation of the forehead well, and as the Auntients did.
  • But the Church of England in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, doth not vse consecratiō of the E­lement at all. Ergo.
  • The Church of England doth not vse the consignation of the forehead rightly, and as the Auntients did.

The not vsing of consecration at al, is no reason why the consignation of the forehead may not be vsed right­ly. For though both agree in this, that they both be con­signations, and are both vsed in the Sacrament of Baptis­me, yet they differ in this, that they are distinct Ceremo­nies, differing one from another in nature, for they are meerly distinct, and haue no dependency, the one of the other: & in vse, For they are not ad Idem, they haue not both reference to the same end and action. the one pre­sumptuously going before the Sacrament, and arrogat­ing to it selfe some kind of preparing of the Action, the other modestly, coming after, and admonishing vs only, what we promised in the Action.

I might better conclude thus against their nouelties in the Lords supper.

They which doe not receiue the Communion kneeling, which the Auntients did, and doe receiue it standing or sitting, which the Auntients did not, doe not receiue the commumon as the Auntients did.

But the Treatiser and his adherents doe not receiue the communion kneeling, which the Geniculatio speciē habes piae & Christianae venerationis, ac proinde potuit olim cum fructu vsurpari. Bez. Epist. 12. Auntients did, and doe [Page 106] receiue it standing or sitting, which the Auntients did not. Ergo:

The Treatiser and his adherents doe not receiue the communion as the Auntients did.

For here, though the Ceremonies of kneeling which the Auntients vsed, and of sitting or standing, which the Treatisers frends vse, be different, the one frō the other: yet both the affirmatiō of the one, doth necessarily infer the negation of the other, and also both of them are or­dained to the same end and Action, namely the recei­ving of the communion.

Thirdly the Treatiser assuming it, as a thing granted, that the Ceremony of consecrating the Element, is aun­tienter then the Ceremony of signing the forehead, doth thervpon conclude, that the most auntient of the Fa­thers vsed the consecration of the Element, long before the consignatiō of the forhead was heard of. Wherin he is exceedingly deceiued▪ For though the Ceremony of consecration be of great antiquity, yet he may learne of Mr. Perkins that it is not to compare with consignation. Perkins demon plobl cap. de sig­no crucis. For he saith, Annis a Christo 300 crux transiens, (which is the consignation of the Crosse) fuit signum externae professionis fidei not only adhibitum in vitâ communi, as he saith, but in Baptisme also, as before is proued out of the Auntients: But Mr. Perkins staieth not there, he saith further vix vnquam adhibita fuit ad signandum sacra­mēta, nisi circa annum 400. Neither then was it straight­way vsed in cōsecrating of the Elemēts, but by degrees: primò vt signaret nobis Christi bona, Aug: tract: 118. in Ioannem: tum posteà vt per eam benedictio sacramenti & consecratio fieret.

Why the Treatiser should deliuer vs this strange doc­trine, [Page 107] That the Auntients did not vse to signe the Childs forehead at all in Baptisme, J cannot conceiue: only J suppose his error might come thus: The Auntients spea­king of two vses of the cōsignatiō, the one in commō life, the other in the Sacrament, as is said before, doe make farre more often mention of the vse in common life, then of the other, and somtimes ioine them both toge­ther in one periode: So that except the iudgment of the reader, can direct him to descerne, which clause belong­eth to the one vse, & which to the other, the error in this point is very easy: And so it seemeth the Treatiser was deceiued, applieing al their speaches whersoeuer, to the vse in common actions, and referring none to that in the Sacrament of Baptisme. But now let vs see how he pro­ueth his assertion.

First the Auntients referred that, (saith he,) to the Bishopps confirmation, so that our crossing the infants forehead, & not the Element of Baptisme, is a meere nouel­tie &c: True it is that in confirmation, the Childs fore­head was signed by the Bishopp, but how doth this cō ­uince, that in Baptisme it was not signed by the Minis­ter? That in confirmation, Tertull. de Bapt cap. 8. the Child [...] forehead was sign­ed, we easily beleeue, for so Tertullian telleth vs in many places, and Cyprian in his Epistle ad Jubaianum,Cypr. ep. 73. de Heret. baptiz. Cap. 8. Nunc quo (que) apud nos geritur, vt qui in Ecclesia baptizantur, prae­positis Ecclesiae offerantur, per nostram orationem, ac ma­nus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur, et signa­culo Dominico consūmentur. But the affirmation of this doth not inferre a negation of the other. Yes, say you, they referred that vnto the Bishops confirmatiō: They re­ferred indeed confirmation, and al the rites, and Cere­monies therof, vnto the Bishop, as was meete: But did [Page 108] not they, thinke you, performe al the rites of Baptisme themselues? your speach doth import as if you fauored confirmation, and allowed of the consignation there. Jf you fauor it truly, J am glad: for the Ceremony of con­firmation is auntient, and hath a good vse (& yet J know not that our Bishoppes vse the consignation of the Crosse in that action) Jf you mention it only for your purpose, without any allowance of the confirmation, it seemeth you care not what you say, so you may giue the least blowe to our settled orders of the Church. Jt seem­eth likewise, that you ascribe greater antiquity to the signing in confirmatiō, then to that in Baptism: For you inferr immediatly here vpon, that our crossing the Jn­fants forehead is a meere nouelty. J cannot yeeld, that the signing in confirmation should be auntienter then the signing in Baptisme, no more then J can yeeld, that confirmation is auntienter then Baptisme: And yet for al that, J acknowledg the signing in confirmation to be very auntient, & am glad to heare you argue for the an­tiquity of that, which your admonitiō to the Parliament so much extenuateth, calling it superstitious not agree­ing to the word of God, Popish, and peeuish, full of toies, & degenerating frō the first institution: (I am glad J say, to hear you plead the antiquity of that Ceremony, though it be with opposition to an auntienter) but yet J nether acknowledg confirmation so auntient as Baptisme: Nor the signing of confirmation, so auntient, as the signing of Baptisme.

Because you thought, wee woulde not beleeue this strange speech of yours vpon your bare word, without proofe, you note vnto vs in your margent: Tertull. de Bap­tismo cap. 7. et 8. Euseb. l. 6. c. 42. Innocent. 1. ep. ad Decen­tium [Page 109] num. 3. Rabanus Maurus de institutione Clericorū, ca. 30. Durand. Rational divin. li. 1 cap. de consecrat. You might haue done wel to haue reported their words too, and no doubt, you would haue done it, had they been so pregnant for your purpose, as you make shew.Tertull. de bap­tis. cap. 9. Tertullian in that place confesseth indeede, that the signe was vsed in confirmatiō, but neither there, nor in any other place doth he deny it of Baptism. Your second authority shew­eth that Novatus the Hereticke after his Baptisme,Euseb li. 6 c. 42 reli­qua consecutus non est post morbum, quae iuxta Ecclesiae ca­nonem consequi debebat, obsignationem videlicet ab Epis­copo. But how doth this proue that the sign was not vsed in his Baptisme? The like may be said to your testimony out of Innocentius, his words indeede are.Innocent. ad De cent ep. 1. tom. 1 coacil. De consignan­dis Infantibus manifestū est, nō ab alio quā Episcopo fieri licere. But he speaketh this of confirmatiō, only which he there proveth must be ministred by the Bishop alone, he maketh no mention of Baptism at al. Your other two au­thorities out of Rabanus and Durandus speake somewhat more plainly & directly to your purpose: for the first saith signatur baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in ca­pitis summitate, per pontificem vero in fronte, &c. Ruban. Maurus de Jnstitut. cle­rico. lib 1. c. 30. Durand. ration. divin. lib. 1. cap de consecrat. itā lib 6. cap. 83. The se­cond saith: Christiani bis ante Baptismū inunguntur oleo benedicto, primò in pectore deinde inter scapulas, & bis post Baptismum, primò in vertice, deinde per Episcopum in fronte, making a distinction of the places: To these I answere.

First, That they make a distinction of the place where this signe was made: in Baptisme on the crowne, in cōfir­mation on the forehead: But they make no distinction of the signe, for they say, that the childe in both was signed, whereas your proofe should be, that the childe was not [Page 110] signed in Baptisme.

Secondly, J say that this difference, of the vpper parte of the head, and the forehead, is a nice difference, and might well haue bin the devise of latter times: Especiallie seeing Durandus saith: Primaetres vnctiones introductae sunt potius vsu quam per aliquā scripturā. Thirdly, J an­swer that in Durands time, the childe in Baptism was not signed in the crown only, but in the forehead too: For so saith Durandus your owne author:Durand. lib 6. ration. cap. 83. Sextum donum Baptis­mi est in vertice, id est in summitate capitis, super cerebrū cū chrismate facta perunctio: septimū est in fronte chris­matio: and that you may be sure, that this, in fronte chris­matio, was with the signe of the Crosse, he tels you, that omnia chrismata cum crucis figurâ perficiuntur. Jbid. cap. 84. Lastly, J oppose to those late writers, the authorities of the Anci­ents before rehearsed, and withall the iudgement and li­berty of our Church, which rather chose to follow the v­niforme simplicity of the Ancients, then the divers multi­plicitie of these latter writers, whom I suppose you doe not quote, (especially Durandus) for any liking you haue of them, or credit you yeeld to their authorities.

But our crossing of the Infants forehead, and not the E­lement of Baptisme, is a meere novelty of some 600. yeares standing, &c.

Our crossing of the Infants forehead, & not the Ele­ment is no noveltie, as hath bin already shewed. Your speech doth soūd as if, if we did crosse both the forhead, & the element: then it were no novelty. And this is true too: For crossing of the element also is ancient, though not so ancient as the crossing of the forehead alone. As for your marginal note, of some 600. yeares standing, it is so manifest an vntruth, as I marvaile, you could be perswaded [Page 111] to set it downe.

Secondly, your second proofe is out of Tertullian. Nei­ther wil that place of Tertullian, de resurrect. carnis, Cap. 8. proue the contrary: Caro abluitur, vt & anima emaculetur, caro vngitur vt anima consecretur, caro signatur, vt & anima muniatur, caro manus impositione adumbratur, vt & ani­ma spiritu illuminetur, caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt & anima de Deo saginetur. Hēce you gather that though indeed he mention the signing of the faith­full, yet it may bee as well referred to confirmation as to Baptisme: True; And yet more properly to Baptism, thē to confirmatiō. For in these words, alluding as you say, to diverse Ceremonies of the Christians, it is far more like­ly (as any man that is acquainted with his articulate mā ­ner of writing wil thinke) that he endevoured rather, e­qually to fit each severall clause to his severall Ceremo­nie, then to apply any one to two: which must needes follow vpon your interpretation.

Thirdly, your third proofe is a probabili. It is more then probable, say you, that the signe of the Crosse was not yet vsed &c. The probability you speake of, is none at al. Concerning Iustine Martyr in his second Apologie to Antoninus, it was not necessary that he should there mē tion any thing more, then those things, which did belōg to the substance of Baptisme: For his purpose was to be breife, and not to propose euery Ceremony of Christiani­ty, but to mention only their praiers, and the things es­sentiall in the Sacrament. And therfore no marvaile, if he did omit this Ceremony here, especially seeing he doth remember it else where, as hath bin shewed, & e­uen in this Apologie he saith before, that nothing was done, without this figure of the Crosse. Concerning Ter­tullian, [Page 112] not remembring it in the places, you cite, who, you say, would not haue omitted it, if it had bin then vs­ed: especially in that very place, where he speaketh of the Crosse, as vsed out of Baptisme: J answere that euen that might be sufficient reason, why he omitted it, when he spake of Baptisme: Because he that saith, omnem pro­gressum, omnem promotum, and quacun (que) nos conversatio exercet &c. doth except none, and therfore not Baptis­me. Againe he that saith it was vsed, in Actions of ciuil conuersation, doth leaue no place of doubt, but that it was much rather vsed in their holy actions of Religion. Lastly there are some learned mē, that vnderstand those words in the seuenth chapter: Exinde egressi de lauacro perungimur benedicta vnctione, Tert. de Bapt. cap. 7. of the sign of the Crosse, which was vsed in all annoyntings, as you heard before out of Durandus.

Treatise. 11. Sect. 2. Obiection.

But the signe of the Crosse is not vsed in Baptisme, but when Baptisme is ended.

Treatisers answere to our 2. Obiection

If you take Baptisme, only for that dipping and sprink­ling of the party, it is true, and so none of the Popish addi­tions, vvhereby they defile the holy Sacrament, are in Bap­tisme, for those, which apud Bellar. Baptism. comitantur are not impious; But if you take Baptisme, as indeede we doe, for the administration of that Sacrament, then both the praiers before, and the praiers after the Actions, after the dipping, doe all indifferently belong to one and the selfe same thing: yet it is all, vna & continua actio administra­tionis sacramenti: Sure it is, that it must be said to be, ei­ther in Baptismo, extra Baptismum, aut nullibi, if it bee [Page 113] out of Baptisme, how is it by common consent of all said to be, signum crucis in Baptismo.

Replie to the Treatisers answere to our second obiection.

This whole answere to our second obiection is no­thing else but a meere cauil of the Treatisers: For though the whole action, being vna et continua actio adminis­trationis sacramenti, as you-name it, be called Baptis­me: Yet it is so called, a digniori parte, and therfore we may very wel, & ought alwaies to distinguish, between those things, which are essentiall in this action, and those things, which are accidentall, betwene those thinges which are for substance of Baptisme, and those thinges which are for decency, & ornament. For ne ij quidem, qui ista excogitarunt, vel ab alijs introducta defenderunt, a­liud esse censuerunt, quam Baptismi ornamenta.

No, say you, you must not so distinguish, but you must take Baptisme as we doe:Beza resp. ad Franc. Baldwin. for otherwise None of the Popish additions, whereby they defile that holy Sa­crament, are in Baptisme, for those which apud Bellarmi­num Baptismum comitantur, are not impious: Al this not­withstāding, you must giue vs leaue to distinguish those things which in their owne nature are distinct: True it is that none of those quae apud Bellarminum Baptismū comi­tantur, are of their owne nature impious, neither are they of the essence of Baptisme, and therfore wee hold, that they which are Baptised, in the Church of Rome, are rightly Baptized. But if those apud Bellarm: are not im­pious, as you say, why call you them Antichristian? and if they be Antichristian, how are they not impious? we see your kind affectiō towards our Church: Our signing with the Crosse in Baptisme is Antichristian, as you [Page 114] call it in the 14. Section, and yet these Popish additions, that defile the Sacrament are not impious.

Your argutation, that it must be either in Baptismo, extra Baptismum, aut nullib [...] is answered in a word. It is in Baptismo, that is in administratione Baptisme, & not in essentia Baptismi. Jt is in Baptisme as an outward de­cent Ceremony, and ornament of the action, not as an inward part or substance of the Sacrament.

Treatise. Section. 12. 3. Obiection.

The signe of the Crosse is very auntient.

Treatisers answere to our 3. obiectiō.

So are many popish traditions, and if on that grounde, we are to retaine it, why doe we not giue the Baptized, lactis et mellis concordiā? why doe we not bring offerings for the dead? for Tertullian the first of the Fathers that e­uer mentioned the Crosse, doth establish these, & the signe of the Crosse, by one, and the selfe same warranty. Besides if vpon the Fathers tradition wee vse the Crosse, then must we receiue, and vse it, as they haue deliuered it vnto vs, that is, with opinion of vertue, & efficacy, not only in the Act of blessing our selues, and in the expelling of Di­uells, but euen in the consecration of the blessed Sacra­ments: De coron, milit. For the first Tertullian is wittnes. Ad omnē pro­gressum, ad omnem promotum, ad omnem aditum, at (que) exitum, ad vestitum et calceatum, frontem crucis signa­culo terimus:Lib. 2. 20. epist. ad Demetr. Lib. 4. cap. 17. For chasing of Diuels, Hierome counselleth Demet. vir. to vse the Crosse: et crebo inquit signaculo crucis munias frontem tuam, ne exterminator Aegipti in te locum reperiat: Lactantius de hoc signo scribens, ait Christi sectatores, inquinatos spiritus signo passionis excludere: Chrysostom: in Psalm: 109. Crux inquit mu­nit [Page 115] mentem, ea daemones vlciscitur, ea tollit morbos a­nimae. But these superstitions are small in regard of that efficacy, which in the Sacraments, Cyprian. de passion. antiquity ascribed vnto the Crosse: For Cyprian (being the auntientest, that mak­eth mention of the Crosse in Baptisme) speaketh of it. cu­ius virtus omnia peragit Sacramenta, sine quo signo ni­hil est sanctum, nec; aliqua consecratio meretur effectū, And againe: Quicun (que) sunt Sacramentorum ministri, qualescun (que) sunt manus quae vel mergunt accedentes ad Baptismum, vel vngunt, qualecun (que) pectus, de quo sa­cra exeunt verba, operationis autoritas in figura crucis omnibus Sacramentis largitur effectum: August. in Ioh. tract: 118. Quod signum inquit nisi adhibeatur siue frō ­tibus credentium, sine ipsi aquae, qua regenerantur, siue oleo quo Chrismate inungūtur, siue sacrificio quo alun­tur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur: It were superfluous to re­hearse the rest.

Replie to the Treatisers answere to our third Obiection.

I looked in this place, that you would rather haue pro­ved, the noveltie of this Ceremony, and that it is no anci­enter then of some 600. yeares standing (as you please to iest before) then so easily yeeld, that it is very ancient, as here you doe: For you doe not deny the antiquitie, that which was obiected, but imply, That antiquity is no cause sufficient why wee should vse it, because, say you, so are many other Popish traditions.

Your answere containeth these two brances.

1 If antiquitie be a cause, why we should retaine it, why should we not retaine other Ceremonies also, as an­cient as this?

2 Jf vpon the Fathers tradition wee vse the Crosse, [Page 116] why then doe we not vse it with opinion of vertue & ef­ficacie, as they haue delivered it?

Vnto this your answer you add by way of Corollary that though it be ancient, yet antiquity could never free it frō sin, & superstitiō; whervpō you make two observations.

1 How dāgerous a thing it is to bring in any humane invention into the service of God.

2 How 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 iudgmēt, seemed both more burdensome, & lesse profitable. These reasons cō ­curring with antiquity, adde the greater weight vnto it, as on the other side, it addeth also vnto them; & all of thē 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 [Page 117] 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, & plera (que) alia sic sentio: Si quae Ec­clesiae essent, quae puram Christi tenerent doctrinam, et sinceram seruarent disciplinam, his (que) signis vterentur sim­pliciter, et pure, abs (que) omni superstitione, vel leuitate, praecise ad pias admonitiones, eas (que) 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 reasō, 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 [Page 118] 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 euē this opiniō 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 mentiō a litle after, yet they yeelded no opiniō 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 at (que) promotum, &c. But what if they by this act of signing thēselues 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, & d [...]mos & frontes, signo pretiosae crucis signare: Haec omnia (saith hee) meaning the benefits of Christs passiō 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 vivāt sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est & resurrexit. And a little after, pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriā 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: [Page 119] Crux (apud veteres) non significat ipsum signū crucis, Perkins demōst 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. whē they attribute any thing to this signe: Omnia dicta Pa­trum, (saith he) vbi crucē, spem, redemptionem, ac salutē &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.

Secōdly 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 a number such like, in the writings of the fa­thers: and yet J deny that in those speeches, they ascribe any opiniō of vertue or efficacy to the sign of the Crosse. This is not mine owne opinion only, but J learne it of that excellent divine Hier. Zanchius. I doubt not, saith he but that sometimes Satan was driven away indeede at the signe of the Crosse, Hier. Zanch. de redempt lib. 6. [...]. 366. as Augustine reporteth many miracles to [Page 120] haue bin done with that signe, and the Deuill also, to haue bin chased: De ciuitate Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. Verū non prop­ter vimsigni, sed propter virtutem fidei, in Christum cru­cifixum, qua praediti erant, et sunt fideles, in fugam verte­batur, at (que) vertitur Diabolus. Goulartius, speaketh to the like effect:Goulart. in Cy­prian ad Deme­ [...]rian. cap. 19. Signum illud (crucis) ad passionem et sangui­nem Christi pertinere Cyprianus testatur, Quamuis ergo veteres Christiani externo signo crucis vsi sunt, id tamen fuit sine superstitione: et doctrina de Christi merito ab errore, qui postea irrepsit, pios seruauit immunes, Cypri­an himselfe speaketh so fully to this purpose, as any man that marketh his words cannot conceiue so grosly of the Ancients:Cypr. de passion. Christi. cap. 11. His words be these, I am videt Hebraeus, et qui­cun (que) de seruitute Aegyptia ad repromissae patriae libertatē anhelat, quòd sanguis Christi efficacius, quam sanguis ag­ni illius, quem in Aegypto Israel immolavit, contrarias ab­ig at potestates: cuius hodiè tanta est autoritas, & potestas, vt non solum Israelitica limina muniat, sed etiam ab ijs qui Israeliticè non vivunt, solum Sacramenti signū repel­lat Daemonia, & vbicun (que) conspecta fuerit, terribilis sit sacri nominis virtus, & sanguinis nota. This testimony J haue rehearsed at large, because it most excellently deli­vereth vnto vs, as wel his own opiniō, as the opiniō of al the Ancients, touching this signe. And yet if you desire a plainer testimony, hear M. Perkins, who in most expresse & significant tearmes vtterly acquitteth thē of your vn­iust accusation.Perkins demon prob. cap. de sig­no crucis. Veteres (saith he) secruce cōtra Daemones munierunt, non quod externo signo crucis tantam vim & efficaciā adscrip serint, sed hac solenni ceremonia suam fiduciam in crucem id est, mortem Christi, apud alios testa­ri, et quodam quasi monitorio fidē excitare voluerunt, quae omnia mala de pellit: And because you shall not haue the [Page 121] vse of this Ceremony without a reason, Zanchius telleth you why it pleased God to shewe such power at the ma­king of this signe, vt illos in sincera fide confirmaret, Zanch. loco su­pra citate. qui primam ad Christi veniebant religionem

Thirdly you accuse them for ascribing vertue and ef­ficacy, to the signe of the Crosse, in consecration of the blessed Sacraments, And this you aggrauat with Tra­gick words. For these superstitions, say you, are small in regard of that efficacy, which in the Sacraments Anti­quity ascribed vnto the Crosse: and this point you proue out of St. Cyprian de Bapt. & passione Christi & St. Aug. 118. tract: vpon St. Iohn. All these authorities J willing­ly acknowledg: But withal J must giue you to vnderstād, that you cite your first authority out of St. Cyprian, Cyprian. de bap. Christi cap. 2. mala fide, For there, by the Crosse he meaneth Christs passiō, wherein the Apostle St. Paule boasteth:Cyp: de pass. Christi cap. 11. and your se­cond partially and to your owne aduantage, as partly hath bin tould you before: For after these words: Opera­tionis autoritas in figura crucis, omnibus Sacramentis lar­gitur effectum, you should haue added that which im­mediatly followed, Et cuncta peragit nomen, quod omni­bus nominibus eminet, a Sacramentorum Vicarijs inu [...]ca­tum, & then the latter part of the Sentence would haue cleared the former, from that most wrongful imputatiō that you lay vpon it. S.Quando per crucem Christi quam f [...]erunt m [...]li, in celebra­tione sacramen­t [...]um, eius bo­num nobis omne signatur, & so Mast Perkins himselfe ex­pounds it. demon prob. ca. de signo crucis. Aug. in that place sheweth, not how the Cross sanctifieth, but how it signifieth.

Jt is a very strong and strang conceipt of yours that could induce you to thinke, that the Auncient Fathers were so simple, as to ascribe any efficacy of consecration of the Sacraments, vnto the signe of the Cross, you can­not be ignorant, that the name or word of consecration, is an Ecclesiasticall word, of frequent vse in the matter of Sacraments, called somtimes Sanctification as in Cypri­an, [Page 122] and diuers others, somtimes [...] Inuocation, as in St. Basill, and Theodoret, somtimes [...], Benedic­tion, as Mat: 26:26: Mark. 14.22. 1. Cor. 10.16. somtimes [...], Thanksgiuing as Luk. 22.19. 1. Cor: 11.24. but most ordinarily consecration in the writings of the Fa­thers. Neither can you be ignorant, that S. Paule calleth the cuppe.1. Cor. 10.16. [...]. The cuppe of blessing, which we blesse, referring this blessing not vnto God, but vnto the cupp: insomuch as Oecumenius expoū ­deth the Apostle, as if he had said thus: [...] the cup of blessing which we blesse, that is which we prepare with praise and thanksgiuing. Jt is euident therfore, that the name of consecration, when we speak of the Sacraments, is no such name as we should be a­fraid of, hauing so good warrant for it: especially in the Scriptures. The thing that is signified by the name, would likwise be considered, that therby we may also iudg, whether the Auntients be iustly taxed by the Treatiser. The thing therfore signified by this name, was nothing else among the Auntients, but a sequestra­tion of the Elements, from their commō vse, and a sanc­tifiing of them, by praier, & inuocation, and thanksgiueing vnto God, to that holy vse which was proper to the Sacraments: as of the water in Baptisme that it might be sanctified, to the mysticall washing away of sins: of the bread and wine in the Lords supper, that it might be pre­pared & sanctified to the spirituall eating of Christs bo­dy,Aug cont. Faust Manich li. 20. cap. 13. Tom. 6. and drinking of his bloud. Noster calix et panis, saith Sr. Augustine, certa consecratione mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur: proinde, quod non ita fit, quamuis sit panis, et ca­lix, adiumentum est refectionis, non Sacramentum religi­onis. Thus far the Auntient Fathers are free frō blame, [Page 123] for even we also in our Church doe the same thing: For we likewise do by praier and invocation sanctifie the E­lements, (which are otherwise of their owne nature or­dained for commō vse,) that they may serue for holy vses: and that those things, which were before necessary helps, for the vse of life, and clensing of our bodies, may nowe become effectuall signes of regeneration, and of the body and bloud of Christ, for the norishing of our souls. Nei­ther doe we now in our Church abhorre the name of consecration, not think the thing to noe purpose, but as­cribe vnto it a certaine effect of change, that it worketh in the Elements, not of their substance, into an other, nor of their naturall qualities, (as the Papists conceiue their Magicall consecration) to effect Transubstantiati­on, but of their vse, and seruice only; that those things which were for common vse before, are now dedicated and appropriated to these holy vses.

Againe a man that truly estemeth, that the Fathers ascribe no vertue nor efficacy to the sacraments them­selues▪ wil easely free them from this imputation, of as­cribing vertue and efficacy to the signe of the Crosse in Consecration. For how can any man imagine: that they which attribute the vertue and efficacy of consecrating the Elements to the signe of the Crosse, should not much more ascribe vnto the Elements so consecrated, some efficacy and vertue of themselues? Now that they ascribed no such power vnto the Sacraments thēselues, nor had any conceit of grace to be conferred by the opus operatum of the Sacraments, as the schoolmē afterward conceiued, we haue most ful and certaine assurance out of their owne testimonies. S. Hierome saith. Qui plena fide non accipiunt Baptisma, non spiritum sanctum, sed [Page 124] aquam percipiunt S. Ambrose likewise to the same pur­pose, spiritus munus est, gratiam implere mysterij. St. Au­gustine is plentiful in this argument. Sacramenta, nō quiae sumuntur sed quia creduntur, sanctificant. And againe, in fidelibus & Electis Sacrament a hoc verè efficiunt quod figurant. And againe, Visibilis sacramenti forma, à mini­stro datur, ipse autem Christus invisibilem dat gratiam. And in another place, Aqua cernitur, sed qui non videtur spiritus operatur. August. quest. ex nouo Test 59. De vnct▪ Chris­matis cap. 3. Vnde tanta vis aquae, vt corpus tangat & cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia exeditur? And St. Cyprian most plainely of all. Effectum sanctificatis Elementis, non propria eorum natura praebet, sed virtus divina potentiùs operatur, vt adsit veritas sig­no & spiritus sacramento: at (que) ex ipsis rerum efficientijs dignitas gratiae patefiat, & interiori homini innotescat.

Yea say you, all this were well enough, but herein the Fathers are to be blamed, because in consecration, they vsed the signe of the Crosse, and ascribed this consecra­tion, & sanctifying of the Elements vnto that signe. They vsed the signe of the Crosse therein indeede, and thence are these speeches of theirs which you alleadged. But they ascribed not this consecration, and hallowing to the signe of the Crosse, but vnto Christes death, whereof the Lords Supper is a remembrance.1. Cor. 11 24. Doe this in remēbrance of me And Baptisme a similitude or representation, vvee that are Baptized into Christ Iesus, Rom. 6.3.4. are Baptized into his death, and die buried with him by Baptisme into his death, &c. And therfore in these Sacraments of Christs death, they made the signe of the Crosse, wheron he died, to sig­nifie that it was his death, that gaue efficacie and vertue to these Sacraments. Also they ascribed this efficacie and power, not vnto the signe of the Crosse, but vnto the words of consecration, or if you wil rather so call them, of [Page 125] Christs institution according to that of S. Augustine. Ac­cedat verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. And be­cause the words of Christs institution refer vs alwaies to his death, therfore they made in the pronouncing of thē, the signe of the Crosse, wheron he died. Hence it is, that though they vsed the signe of the Crosse in consecration, yet they attributed not the vertue of consecration vnto it, but vnto Christ and his institution. And therefore St. Cyprian, wheresoever he mentioneth the one,Cypr. testim. ad Quirin. lib. 2. cap. 21. doeth al­waies ioine the other with it: As, in passione crucis, et sig­no virtus omnis est, & potestas; & in the examples before rehearsed, with Figura crucis, he ioineth peragit nomē in­vocatum, and with signum repellat daemonia, hee ioineth, sacri nominis virtus, & sanguinis nota. Aug: serm 181. de Temp. vide & serm. 19. de Sanctis. The like doth S. Aug. Omnia quaecun (que) sanctificantur hoc signo dominicae crucis cum invocatione Christi nominis consecrantur.

The distinctiō that you make between Tert. & Cyp. that Tert. should bee the first of the Fathers that ever menti­oned the Crosse, & Cyprian the ancientest, that maketh mention of the Crosse in Baptisme, is a very vaine & fri­volous distinction. For (to keepe my selfe within the cō ­passe of those Ancients that I haue before cited,) both Iustin Martyr, before Tertulliā, mentioneth the Crosse: & Tertullian himselfe, as also Origen, which were before Cypriā, make mentiō of the Crosse in Baptisme, as before J haue declared. Jt were superfluous, say you, to rehearse the rest, & these too, except you rehearsed thē to better purpose.

Treatise. 13. Sect.

But hereby it is evident, that the religious vse of the Crosse, was even at the first sinfull, and superstitious, nei­ther can it be shewed, that it was ever vsed by the Fathers: Religionis ergò sine admixta superstitione, and this in­ventiō [Page 126] did no sooner creepe into the Sacramēt, but it drew vnto it selfe such superstitious conceipt of efficacie & ne­cessity, that without it, the meanes which God appointed for the consecration of the Elements, seemed over weake, yea vnavaileable, according as someLately in Surrey a child rebaptized, because the Crosse was o­mitted. amongst vs, account not their children lawfully Baptized yea, will haue thē re­baptized, if the Crosse haue bin omitted.


This is that which you adde, by way of Corollary, to your answere, importing thus much in effect, as J con­ceiue: That though the signe of the Crosse be very anci­ent, yet antiquity could not free it from sin, and supersti­tion: we doe not alleadge the antiquity of the Crosse, as an argument to free it from sin and superstition, which we thinke in our vse, and in the vse of the Ancients, it is not infected with. But we alleadge it, as an argument why it should not be rashly changed, and taken away, as you would haue it, both because it was ordained vpon good reason, and advise at the first, and hath bin vsed ever since, with no small profit to the Church. As for the evi­dence you talke of, it doth not yet appeare, the vse of it in actions of religion, without opinion of vertue and effica­cie, was ever free from sin & superstition. But to this your accusation, J shal neede to speake nothing in this place, because J haue answered it before against you, & against your grand 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 [Page 127] 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, at (que) is qui vtitur, bene vtentibus bonum est, male vtentibus malū 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 scādalize & alienate more mens minds frō 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, thē 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 occasiō 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 frō 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.


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 a [...]tract any thing from the in­stitution [Page 129] 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 Troiā 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 [Page 130] 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 Antichristiā. But that a thing should be Popish and Antichristian, and that before Popery was hatched is in my vnderstāding 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, Tē ­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 of Christ, Popish they coulde not, because neither was Popery yet heard of, nor had the Papacy yet imbraced those superstitions.

Againe, that a thing should be Popish or Antichristiā, is not in the thing, but in the minds of them that make it Popish and Antichristian. For this you haue bin oftē told, that no ceremony can be Popish & Antichristian of it selfe:Bucer de sacris vest. ad Hopp. Ritum aliquem Aaronicum esse vel Antichristianum, in nullis haeret Dei creaturis, in nulla veste, in nulla figura, in nullo colore, aut vllo Dei opere, sed in animo & professione, bonis Dei creaturis, ad impias significationes abutentium. [Page 131] Things are good, saith he farther, not only in their natu­rall effects, as bread in the effect of feeding, & strength­ning of the body: wine, in the effect of drinking & heat­ing: but also in their diuers significations & admonitions: Quae scriptura docet, diabolo, vel malis hominibus, eā fac­tam esse potestatem, vt abusu suo vllam queant Dei crea­turam, et bonam etiam significando et admonendo, per se malam facere et impiam? wherfore nothing can be said to belong to the Preisthood of Aron, but that which is vsed to that superstition, as if it were necessary and profi­table of it selfe to saluation, euen now after Christ is re­ueled; or wherby some occasion, to imbrace or retaine that superstition, or to trouble the concord of Brethrē, may be ministred: So likwise no rite can be called Anti­christian, but that, wherby some profession, and commu­nication with Antichrist may be shewed, or may serue to that profession or communication: And a litle after he hath these words, very pertinent and effectuall to this purpose: Eam enim libertatem &c. For if any man wil say that this liberty (of Ceremonies) may be permitted to no Church of Christ, he must needes yeeld to one or o­ther of these inconueniences, Ether that nothing is grā ­ted to the Churches touching the Lords supper, but that wheteof they haue the expresse commandement of Christ, and then al the Churches must be condemned of wick­ed boldnes and presumtiō &c. Or that there are not any Churches, which the Lord doth so farre free from al sus­pition and abuse of his good creatures, that al the good creatures of God are pure (through true faith in his nāe) to them that are pure, yea euen in their signification; which who soeuer shall say, he therin must also denie, Christ to be that Lord, which he hath promised him­selfe [Page 132] to be to al men, that is, their deliuerer from al vn­cleannes: Or that wicked men by their abuse can so pol­lute the creatures of God, which are good of themselus, as they can serue no godly man to a godly vse: which is manifestly against the testimony of the holy Ghost: Rō: 14.14. 1. Cor. 8.4. et 9.20. 1 Tim. 4.4. Or certainly that it is not lawfull for Christians, to dispose of al things, for admonition of their Creator and ours, of his benefits to­wards vs, and of our duties towards him: which is repug­nant to that, that the holy Ghost teacheth every where, concerning the knowledg and worship of God in al his works, and doing al things in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, to the glory of the father.

This testimony of Mr. Bucer J haue therefore repea­ted at large, because therein two things very effectual to this present questiō are delivered. First, that the church hath libertie and power to ordaine thinges indifferent in Gods service: And secondly, that no abuse of other men cā so pollute the creatures of God, as that the pollution should ever after cleaue to the creatures, as the Leprosie of Naaman did vnto Giezi: but the corruptiō remaining only in the mindes of them that did defile the creatures, they become againe pure, to them that are pure, that is, to the faithful. Whence it followeth necessarily, that no­thing can be iustly reputed Antichristian vnto any, but vnto them that vse it to that end, that Antichristian pro­fession may be advanced by it, or with that opiniō, that they that are Antichristian doe ascribe vnto it: whervpō it must as necessarily ensue, that seeing we in the Church of England, do not vse the signe of the Crosse in Baptism, to advance the professiō of Antichrist, nor with those o­pinions that Popish Antichristes doe ascribe vnto it, ther­fore [Page 133] vnto vs it remaineth pure and cleane, & leaveth the Popery and Antichristianisme, that it had, sticking stil in the mindes and consciences of Popish Antichrists. The foundation therfore of your observation being thus sha­ken, we will now trie the iointes and sinewes of your ar­gument, whereby you would conclude this Ceremonie to haue bin Antichristian in the Ancients, and therfore must bee also such in vs. Against the Ancients you ar­gue thus.

  • That which was the beginning, as it were, of the whorish fornications, and made way for the beast, may well be takē for Popish and Antichristian.
  • But the abuses and opinion of vertue, and efficacy, that the Ancients had of the signe of the Crosse, were the begin­nings of the whorish fornications, and made way for the beast.
  • Ergo The abuses and opinion of efficacy and vertue, that the Ancients had of the signe of the Crosse, may well bee taken for Popish and Antichristian.

To the Maior. That which was the beginning &c. It is true in thē, in whō it was the beginning of whorish for­nications, and in whō it made way for the beast, as in Si­mon Magus, Elimas, the Nicholaitans, the false Apostls, and the Heretiques: al which, no doubt, gaue the begin­nings to the whorish fornications, and made way to the beast. Jn the holy fathers that did not so, it cānot be iust­ly reputed Popish, or Antichristian, as hath bin declared in the last words before.

To the Minor: But the abuses &c. Jt is false: for the Antients did not abuse it, neither had any opiniō of ver­tue and efficacy of it, as is shewed in the 12. sect: & ther­fore your cōclusiō toucheth none but thē, that were for­runners [Page 134] of Antichrist; Jt cannot touch the Antient fa­thers, that opposed themselues, to the first working of the mystery & resisted the Heresies, that made way to the Beast. Like vnto this is your reason that you make a­gainst our present vse.

  • That which hath since receiued farther impiety, and autority from the Antichrist, may iustly be taken for Po­pish & Antichristian now.
  • But the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme in the Church of England, hath since receiued farther impiety & autority from the Antichrist.
  • Ergo The signe of the Crosse in Baptisme in the Church of England, may iustly be taken for Popish and Antichristian now.

The Maior of this argument holdeth true as the Ma­ior of the former did, that is, in them in whome it hath receiued farther impiety, and authority frō Antichrist, Jn others in whome it hath not receiued farther impie­ty, it holdeth not.

The Minor is false, for in the Church of England the Popish abuses of the Crosse, haue receiued neither fur­ther impiety, nor authority, but contrariwise are al re­moued; and the first sincere vse of the Antients is re­tained: For we vse this signe of the Crosse, in truth, to no other purpose, thē we vse the name or worde Crosse, that is, only for signification and admonition; and seeing there is no other difference betweene thē, but what the word soundeth vnto the eare, that the signe representeth vnto the eie, why should there be more fault founde with the one, thē with the other? or why should our vsing of more outward meanes, for helping our infirmities, in remem­bring Christs passion be misliked, Seeing in al other mat­ters, [Page 135] the more meanes we vse to helpe our weakenes, the better we reckon of thē:Beza in defen. & reprehens. Sebast. Castell. Ex quo nostrae redemptionis pre­tium in cruce pependit, illud ipsum crucis vocabulum an tea ignominiosissimum, nobis Christianis factum est hono­rificentissimum. Jf the word Crosse be so honourable, be­cause our Saviour somtimes hunge vpon the Crosse, why should the signe of the same thing be so daungerous and pernitious? And therefore your conclusion no way hur­teth the Church of England, but only in the vniust calū ­niation, that it laieth vpon it, and in it vpon the Ancients whose reputation, and integrity, touching the Crosse, standing good as for any thing you can say against it (it alwaies wil) it is not possible for you to fasten the Popish abuses, and whorish fornications of the Romish Anti­christ vpon our Church.

The exhortation, wherewith you conclude this your Treatise is good, in Thesi vnto al men, & even in this par­ticuler Hypothesis of the Crosse in Baptisme, to thē that are intangled, & defiled with Popish conceipts, & super­stitions. But vnto vs, that are no waies partakers of those corruptions, you might very wel haue forborne it.

The feare of a curse, least being partakers of the Romish Antichrists sins, you should also receiue of her plagues, keeps you, you say, from his superstitious Idolatries: The feare of a curse, ought, no doubt, to be a great bridle to restraine all men from doing evil. But we invite you not to be par­takers of the Romish Antichrists sinnes, but only of our society, in our innocent and harmlesse Christian Ceremo­nies. Wherin if you fear a curse, you fear where no cause of feare is. If you fear a curse indeed, as you pretend, you shall do wel to translate this feare of yours, frō the harm­lesse vse of the Crosse, wherein either there is no danger [Page 136] at all (as we are perswaded) or no certaine danger (which your selues cannot proue) vnto the most certaine & vn­doubted dāger of disobedience; whervnto, without al per­aduenture, there is due a fearfull and seuere curse, as we are taught by the exampls of Corah, Numb. 16.1. Dathan, and A­biram in the booke of God: To which purpose also the wise preacher, that sought to find out pleasant words, & an vpright writing▪ euen the words of truth, doth aduer­tise vs,Eccle. 8.2. namely to take heed to the mouth of the King, & to the word of the oath of God, that is, as the Geneua note doth well expound, it, obey the King, & keepe the oath, that thou hast made for the same cause. Nae perturbatè a facie eius abito: Cartwright in [...]. 1. cap. 8 Eccl. For this is radix rebellionis, saith M. Cart­wright, Siperturbatè animo ferri se patiātur: vnde fit, vt pleri (que) a subiectione debita deficiant, cum ira, indignati­one, ambitione, lucri cupiditate, ab officio discedunt; This is the roote of rebellion, if men will suffer themselus to be caried with discontentment, from the presence of the King: whence it commeth, that many men fall from due subiection, when they depart from their duty, either for anger, or indignation, or ambition, or desier of gaine.

The conclusion to the Treatiser & his friends.

And thus far J haue attēded the Treatisers discours, step by step & foot by foot, omitting, as J think, nothing that is materiall: and yeelding, as J hope, iust satisfaction to al them, that with peaceable minds, & vnpartiall affectiōs shall be pleased to weigh his arguments, & my answeres in indifferent ballances: wherin if J haue done any thing that may content (though in the least degree) you to whom this answere is addressed, J shal thinke this la­bour of mine, wel bestowed: where vnto, as J was first moued by them, which had autority to command me, [Page 137] so it was on my owne part most willingly vndertaken, with an ernest desire to ad if possibly J might, some drop of water to the quenching of that flame of discontent­ment that thus rageth amōgst vs: And J trust, J may the rather hope, that some good hereby may be effected, in that J came into this worke, with a single mind, & with­out al eie or affection to any particular man, that might be imagined to be the writer of this Treatise of whom, J neither had, nor yet haue, so much as the least inckling or suspition. Only the matter and argument of this Tre­atise, drew on my pen: which (to speake my iudgment & opiniō of it) seemed vnto me so warily set down, as that it might both stumble a weake and vnsetled reader: and also add obstinacy, & stiffnes, to minds already possessed with loue, and liking of that opinion; though it haue nei­ther strength of argument, nor power of persuasion, to winn any man vnto that conceite, that either had iudg­ment to descerne the manifold fallacies and captions therein vsed, or stood before contrarily affected.

That which J would now say is, to desier the Treati­ser and his frends, that they would first reforme them­selues, and remoue this stumbling block, which them­selues, and not our Church hath laid before them, out of their owne waies. If it be, as they are wont to say, against their consciences, thē to reforme the error of their owne consciences, which no doubt, they may doe, by inform­ing their consciences aright, and laying true Science as the surest foundation of their consciences; If otherwise it be but only feare, least they may seeme by yeelding to haue ouer seene them selues, and hauing sōtimes prech­ed against this Ceremony, may be accused of leuity & inconstancy in their doctrine, and so consequently bring [Page 138] on some discredit, vnto their Ministry▪ Let thē know, that al these are but humane respects, and can no way be al­leadged, as iust causes, why they should break brother­ly amity and concord, and make a rent and dissentiō in the Church of God. Neither can these outward respects giue any iust excuse, to disobedience, & opposition, a­ga [...]nst the Magistrat, & laws established: which being of things indifferent, made for preseruation of order & de­cency in the Church, bind their consciences: and that re­sistance, that is made against them, is made against the ordinance of God.

Secondly, J doe very hartily desire them to consider howe great a mischiefe they haue brought vpon our Church: what breach of Christian charity among our selues, which being al of one houshold, should bee all of one minde; and what reioycing and courage they haue given to our common enemy, [...]: How the Papists reioice to see this iar amongst vs: how Popery dayly doth prevaile, and take strength, & hart, by occasion of this breach. How much better were it, to turne these forces that are spent vpon our selues, a­gainst the commō adversary? who (as lamentable expe­rience hath taught vs) maketh this strife of ours, a fit oc­casion and instrument to overthrow our common faith. As lately did appeare most manifestly, when they ende­vored to cloake their barbarous, and inhumane cruelty, with the colour of your discōtētmēt against the state Ful of rage and malice is Satan now towards the last time of his hopes: he worketh every way, & laieth al his snares to deceiue the simple: in some by pretensed zeale: in some by delusions and false impostures: in some by divellish plots and desperate designes: and generally in all sorts of men, [Page 139] by heaping disgraces and contempt vpon the reverende Cleargie, and Ministry of this Church as if they were the only lets, that hindered the full strengthning and perfe­cting of his kingdome.

These things and many other grievous sins, & works of darknes, that blush not now to shew themselues in the open day, could not thus swarme amongst vs, as daylie they doe, if we all truely intended the same thing: if vvee could faithfully & vnfainedly giue one an other the right hand of fellowship, and seriously doe the Lords worke with one consent. My hartie desire therefore, & earnest request is, that you with vs, & we with you, would right­lie consider these things: and knowing that our holy Mi­nistry in preaching of Christ crucified, is the most forci­ble waie, wherby it pleaseth God to weaken the strength & bodie of sin, giue our selues wholie to that worke: That laying aside these questions of Ceremonies, that haue now a long time troubled our peace, our contentiō hēce forth may be against them, that differ from vs in the sub­staunce of our saving faith: That so God may giue a bles­sing to our labours, and wee all with one mouth, and one minde may glorifie God the Father of our Lorde Jesus Christ.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.