AN ANSWER TO A CERTAIN TREATISE OF THE CROSS IN BAPTISM. Entitled A Short Treatise of the Cross in Baptism, contracted into this Syllogism. No human ordinance becoming an Idol may lawfully be used in the service of God. But the sign of the Cross, being an human ordinance is become an Idol. Ergo: The sign of the Cross, may not lawfully be used in the service of God. Wherein not only the weakness of the Syllogism itself, but also of the grounds and proofs thereof, are plainly discovered. By L. H. Doct. of Divinity. 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, & ensign regni. Printed at Oxford by joseph Barnes, and are to be sold in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Crown, by Simon Waterson, 1605. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND MOST REVEREND FAther in God, RICHARD, by the providence of God, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England & Metropolitan; & one of his majesties most Honourable Privy Council. NOthing makes me more afraid, to offer this mine answer, to your Grace's view & censure, than the very length, which contrary to my purpose and conceit, it is now grown unto. For both it may justly argue me of indiscretion; for framing so long an answer to so short a Treatise: and the longer it is, the more must it needs be subject to divers and sundry oversights. Both which give me just occasion much the rather to fly to so safe a sanctuary, as your Grace's patronage, not only against them, who for the matters sake will certainly mislike it: but even against them also, who favouring the argument, may peradventure judge the coat too big for the body, or wish something otherwise then here they find it. May it please your Grace therefore to remember, that first this matter of the Cross in Baptism, is that great stumbling block, whereat all our discontented brethren do take offence; & secondly, that in this small Treatise all the chiefest arguments which they usually make against this sign, are comprehended: I make no doubt, but that both your Grace & all other indifferent Readers, will easily pardon my length. Especially because my endeavour was, to give just satisfaction to every objection, and to leave nothing unanswered, that might seem to carry any weight of reason with it▪ which course, as I held throughout the whole Treatise in general, so more especially in the last part. Where our objections, which the Treatiser maketh show to satisfy, are justified to be too weighty, for so slight and incoherent answers, as are fitted unto them. The Treatiser more over, not only somewhat in every part of the Treatise, but fully and of resolved & settled purpose in the last part, maketh great vaunt, that either the Ancient fathers in their times used not this sign at all in Baptism, or if they did, they used it to far other purposes than we do now; or lastly, if they used it to any such end yet even in them it was never free from sin, and superstition. I thought it therefore a principal part of my duty, somewhat more at large to insist upon these points, being things in my judgement not slightly to be passed over. And accordingly have declared, both that the Ancient fathers used this consignation of the Cross in Baptism in their times, And also that they used it, (though to other purposes too) yet even to such ends & purposes, as our Church doth at this day: & lastly, I have freed (as I trust) aswell our Christian use thereof, from suspicion ophiolatry, as that use which the Ancients had of it, from that imputation of sin & superstition, which unjustly is supposed to have accompanied it in their times. And this I trust may be sufficient excuse and defence for the prolixity of this answer. As for the oversights and imperfections therein contained, no just Apology can be made: only I must fly to your Grace's favour, & good acceptance of the Readers. I could have wished, and from my heart I do desire, that the late Conference before his most excellent Majesty, (so much desired & expected before it came) might have had that success whereof there was hope given at the first. That is either utterly have taken away, and made an end of these quarrels in our Church, or at the least, after full satisfaction given, (which there they had) somewhat abated the heat of their discontentment. That so we all with one heart and one mind, might have provided ourselves against that head of Popery, that by these domestical dissensions getteth daily strength among us. But it is come to pass (I know not how) that these contentions are since that time, much more rife than they were before, & prosecuted with greater heat than ever; As though by that meeting in the conference, they had rather taken heart, and greater courage, than any foil; and new strength rather, than any just reproof, or satisfaction. Where upon, as divers others have endeavoured to answer their exceptions to our Church Ceremonies in general; so I have laboured to take out of the way all their scrupels and objections against this particular of the Cross in Baptism▪ wherein my conscience beareth me record, I have walked with an upright heart, and sincere affection; and I verily think, according to the truth in this behalf. If therefore there shall be any thing found therein, answerable to the worth & dignity of the cause; all that justly and properly belongeth only to your Grace, from whom it took the first beginning. If otherwise, I shallbe always ready upon better information, to reform my errors and oversight. How soever I commend both it and myself to your Grace's honourable favour and protection, and shallbe always willing to dispose my labours according to your Grace's direction; studying in allthings wherein God shall enableme, to advance the glory of God, and knowledge of his truth▪ whereof as God hath made your Grace the greatest ornament and pillar in our Church; so I humbly beseech him of his infinite goodness, to bless all your religious & careful endeavours for the same; And withal, to give you many honourable days and comfortable Assistants in so great a work; to the glory of his holy name, contentment of his most excellent Majesty, & perpetual good of this Church and congregation. Your Grace's most bounden and dutiful Chaplain LEON. HUTTEN. AN ANSWER TO A TREAtise of the Cross in Baptism. The Title whereof is A short Treatise of the Cross in Baptism contracted into this Syllogism. No human ordinance becoming an Idol, may lawfully be used in the service of God. But the sign of the cross being a human ordinance, is become an Idol. Ergo The sign of the Cross may not lawfully be used in the service of God. This short treatise of the Cross in Baptism consisteth of three principal parts. 1 The main syllogism whereinto this whole treatise is contracted. 2 The proof of the several parts of this syllogism. 3 The answering of certain objections. THE ANSWER TO THE WHOLE SYLLOGISM. Concerning the main syllogism, let us consider, first a little of the form, and then afterward come unto the matter. IN the form I only observe, that if the Treatiser had gone ordinarily to work, and kept himself exactly to the terms of his Mayor, the Minor would much better, and with less suspicion of deceit have been conceived thus: No human ordinance becoming an idol, may lawfully be used in the service of God. But the sign of the Cross is a human ordinance becoming an idol. Ergo The sign of the Cross may not lawfully be used in the service of God. For so the ambiguity of the word, becoming would have still remained, and we might still have been at our choice whether we would take it for beseeming, and adding ornament or decency to an Idol, or for being made or become indeed an Idol itself. And I marvel much why the Treatiser held not this course, considering that, first it would have been as available for his present purpose, and secondly it would still have left an impression in the mind of the readers, that no ornament, or other thing beseeming or adding decency to an Jdol (and they can make what the list an Jdol) may lawfully be used in God's service. By which means as great a blow would have been given to Caps, Sunrplisses, hoods, and Copes, as now by this Treatiser is given to the sign of the Cross. But the Treatiser (you will say) meant more honestly, and therefore having used a word of doubtful signification in the mayor, he very sincerely restrained it in the minor to his purposed intent, thereby showing that he dealt plainly, & intended no deceit. His sincerity and true dealing is no ways testified by this means: for had he indeed meant plainly, and intended no Sophistication, he would have conceived his syllogism in usual, and known terms, & such as are proper and familiar in this argument of ceremonies, as namely instead of human ordinance he would have used Ecclesiastical constitution, for becoming an Idol, he would have said, abused to Idolatry, or superstitiously abused, in place of service of God, he would have put celebrating of God's service, and so have concluded in this, or some such like form. No Ecclesiastical constitution, that sometime hath been superstitiously abused, may afterwards be reduced to his first lawful use, and so retained in the celebrating of God's service. But the sign of the Cross in Baptism, is an Ecclesiastical constitution, that hath sometime been superstitiously abused. Ergo The sign of the Cross in Baptism may not be reduced to his first lawful use, and so retained in the celebrating of God's service. This observation I make the rather because the very name of human ordinance is always odious, & importeth traditions merely human, wicked, impious, and lying, proceeding from our corrupt nature: for the which cause human doctrines, the commandments of men, are reproved by our Saviour: contrariwise the name of Ecclesiastical 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 merely human, 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 truth, and therefore the traditions of the Church are true and holy. And yet it pleased the Treatiser, in his charity, rather to use human ordinance, then Ecclesiastical constitution, to what purpose and intent let the indifferent Reader judge. But because he was to make choice of his terms by his own judgement, and not by my direction, I will therefore follow him in his own words. And then I say again, that if he had indeed meant honestly, and intended no sophistication, he would in such propositions, as express a thing to be just or unjust, lawful, or unlawful, have set down the circumstances of time, persons, and place, or such other like. Of time in this sort. No human ordinance, once of good use, that afterward became an Idol, may lawfully be used in the service of God. But the sign of the Cross being a human ordinance, once of good use afterward became an Idol. Ergo The sign of the Cross may not lawfully be used in the service of God. Of place, and persons thus. No human ordinance becoming an Idol in the Church of Rome, and among the Papists, may lawfully be used in the service, of god in the Church of England, and among the Protestants. But the sign of the Cross is a human ordinance becoming an Idol in the Church of Rome, and among the Papists, Ergo. The sign of the Cross may not lawfully be used in the service of God in the Church of England, and among the Protestants. For thus the falsehood and inconsequence of his argument would easily have appeared unto all men. But the Treatiser thought it more for his advantage, to muddy his propositions, concealing all circumstances that might give li●ht to the point in controversy, and to set down his argument confusedly, the more to stumble the unskilful Reader. But leaving the form of this syllogism, let us briefly come to the matter therein contained. The Mayor. No human ordinance becoming an Idol, may lawfully be used in the service of god. The answer to the mayor. The mayor is merely false, for although the Syllogizer doth verily persuade himself, that he hath cunningly contrived into on proposition, two inexpugnable reasons, why the sign of the Cross may not lawfully be used in the service of god, the first because it is a human ordinance, the second because it is become an jdol, yet there is no truth neither in the one, not in the other. Concerning the first, that no human ordinance is to be used in the service of god, I would feign know of the Treatiser what he meaneth by the service of god. If he mean (preaching, which to that sect is now become almost the only service of god) I will propose such plain matter against his assertion, as himself shall 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 human invention: for so the Apostle expressly citeth two of them in there several places. Secondly they were used in the service of god: For the first was used in a sermon to the Athenians; the second in that great argument & heavenly discourse of our resurrection: the third in his instruction to Titus how he should carry himself towards them of Crect. And lastly, for any thing that ever I could learn, they were well and lawfully used in god's service. For though it have pleased those that are of opinion with our treatiser, in the humour of there sect, and favour of there ignoranc, utterly to reject the use of all human learning in their sermons, yet I hold it not therefore unlawful: And sure I am that, Ambrose delect andi gratiâ utitur 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 clerk than any they can set against him, is of opinion that a De doctr. christian. lib. 2. c. 4. Si qua forte vera, & fidei nostrae accommoda dixerunt, non solum formidanda non sunt, sed abijs etiam tanquam iniustis possessoribus, in usum nostrum vendicanda: now if a man upon these grounds should infer, that therefore all human ordinances & inventions are not excluded from the service of God, I marvel what our Treatiser would think of his universal negative proposition. Secondly, if by the service of God he understand the Liturgy and form of divine service and prayer, than I demand what manner of Liturgy there was in the Church of the Jews till the time of our Saviour. For we are not to imagine, that in their daily sacrifices, in their Sabbaths, and new moons, & other festival days, men assembled only to perform the bare outward actions of killing their sacrifices, and offering their oblations, without any form of prayer and Liturgy for such holy purposes. And yet those outward actions only are recorded and registered unto us, as being of God's institution, and those other of prayer, and thanksgiving, & vocal service of the congregation (if any such were, as certainly they were) are passed over in silence without any record or remembrance; which makes me to conceive (and verily I shall remain in that opinion till I be reform) that all other compliments were wholly left, & permitted to the direction of the Priests. For had there been any such forms of prayer and thanksgiving instituted by God, they would (no doubt) either have been recorded by Moses, aswell as there form of blessing the people, mentioned Numb: 6.24. or preserved as safe as the other Ceremonies and rites of there sacrifices. And herein I am the rather confirmed by the Titles and Inscriptions of diverse psalms, which in the times of those oblations & sacrifices were used in holy meetings. But the whole manner of ordering and disposing of them seemeth to have been in the Priests and Levites, and them that had the chief government in holy assemblies. For so much both the sending of divers psalms to the chanter, or him, that excelled in music as jeduthune, Asaph, the sons of Corah: and the names of certain Jnstruments, or tunes whereto they were to be set, as Neginoth, Shoshannim, Alamoth, and such like, do most manifestly import. Also I would feign know of the Treatiser whether the appointing of the Singers, Priests, and Levites in their orders and courses, which is ascribed to David, 1 Chron. 25. to It hoida, 2. Chro. 23.18. to Ezechias, 2. chron. 31.2. were a human ordinance, or no? for that it was used in God's service, these alleged places sufficiently testify: and that it was a human ordinance instituted first by David, and renewed afterward by those others, these places following plainly affirm. The song of the Lord began with the trumpets & instruments of David King of Jsraell. 2. Chron: 29.27. Ezechias the King and Princes commanded the Levites, to praise the Lord with the words of David, and Asaph the king's seer. 2. Chron. 29.30. and after the captivity, joshua the Priest, and Zerubbabell the governor, appointed the Priests in their apparel with trumpets, & the Levites the sons of Asaph with Cymbals, to praise the Lord after the ordinance of David King of Israel. Esra: 3.10. Thirdly if by the service of God, he mean the outward ceremonies of our religious carriage, and behaviour while we are in the Church hearing God's word, and praying unto him in the congregation, I would know whether those ordinances which the Apostle S. Paul prescribeth That women should keep silence in the Church 1. Cor. 14.34. That men should pray bare headed and women covered. 1. Cor. 11.4. That men coming together to the Lords supper should stay one for another, and that profane feasting should not be mingled with the lords Supper. 1. Corinth. 11.17. whether I say these, and many such like were of human institution or divine? If they were of man's ordinance, than the Treatiser is much mistaken, for all these belonged to the service of God, if they were not of human but divine institution, how then doth he call them My things, The ordinances that I have delivered? 1. Cor 11.2. and why speaks he not in God's person, but his own? I will that men pray every where lifting up pure hands. That women array themselves in comely apparel. 1. Tim: 2.8.9. and, I permit not a woman to teach. 1. Tim. 2.12. If the Treatiser shall say that in all these examples formerly alleged, those men were led by the spirit of God, & therefore what soever they appointed was God's ordinance, my answer there unto 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 between those things which God commanded in such actions, & those things which were ordered by men: else the scripture would neither so expressly have mentioned such things to have been done by such men, as in the former examples: nor St. Paul have spoken in his own person so resolutely, as in the latter. A manifest proof whereof we may draw out of the same Apostle speaking of a matter of greater importance, namely marriage, 1. Cor: 7. where he would not have acknowledged, that some thing he spoke by permission, and some other things by Commandment, as in the 6. verse, nor have so exactly distinguished between the Lord commandeth & not I, speaking of equal marriages, verse. 10. and I command, and not the Lord, speaking of unequal marriages, verse. 12. But only to give us to understand, that in these matters of ceremony and outward order, where he useth not God's express authority, there he speaketh of his own judgement, directed always, as himself verily thinketh. 1. Cor. 7.40. by the spirit of God. Hitherto I have spoken only of those things, wherein I would willingly be instructed, concerning the liturgies of the old testament till the Apostles times. Now, if I should resume the same points, & discourse of them, as I find them to have been used in the Primitive Church & immediate ages next after the Apostles, I should press the Treatiser with such a multitude of examples above all exception, as must needs overthrow his weak position. For first for sermons, both in there preachings and in there writings, how full of human arts and secular learning are the ancient 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? etc. yet in the commerce and intercourse of there knowledge, as on the one side, Quis poetarum? quis Sophistarum qui non omnino de Prophetarum font potauerit? ut facile credatur divinam literaturam, thesaurum fuisse posteriori cuique sapientiae: so on the other side, Aug. de doct. christi. li. 2. c. 40. * Nun aspicimus quanto auro et argento et vest suffarcinatus exierit de Aegipto Cyprianus doctor suavissimus, et Martyr beatissimus? quanto Lactantius, quanto Victorinus, Optatus, Hylarius, and to omit 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 any one of the ancient fathers, that was not able to convince profane Poets, Sophisters, & Philosophers, out of their own principles and superstitions, God in his wisdom so giving gifts to those his most worthy instruments, Niceph. Cal. lib. 8. cap. 29. that they, * Tanquam periti Musici gratum et jucundum decantantes carmen, super vacaneas quoque percurrere plectro chordas potuerint, et ornatus gratia supra eas quae ex usu sunt, alias etiam adijcere. Secondly for the liturgies & form of divine service in those times, as we do willingly acknowledge, all things to have been of far more simple and plain observation, than they came afterward unto, so it cannot be denied, but that even then also human ordinances & inventions were used in God's service: for what else shall we call, and to what head shall we refer, the liturgies of St. james used in the Church of jerusalem? of St. Basill used in the Church of Caesarea Cappad? of St. Chrysostome used in the Church of Constantinople? of St. Clement, used in the Church of Rome? and generally of all those other famous liturgies mentioned in the Ecclesiastical histories, and recorded to have been used in several Churches in the most flourishing state of the Primitive Church? what conceit shall we have of those zealous & religious Christians, that have in all ages, and in all Churches, without any interruption, so devoutly sung, & said, Athanasius, and the Nicene Creed? what of the heavenly ditty, Te Deum, compiled by St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, and from them derived into all Churches? what of the sacred hymn Trisagium, used first in the Church of Constantinople, & afterward commended to the world by the council of Chalcedon? what of so many excellent hymns, verses, Antiphonies, Responsories, Rogations, and Litanies, as we read to have been made by S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Hilary, S Ambrose, S. Augustine, Synesius, Prudentius, Gregory the great, Sedulius, and diverse others, used continually in the Church? And lastly, (to avoid infinite examples to this purpose) what shall we think of the fourth Council of Toledo, Conc. Toleta. 4. Canon. 12. that doth justify the saying of prayers, & singing of hymns made by men, against such as would have nothing used in the church, but what is in the Canonical scriptures, or hath been received by the Apostles? De consec. dist● 1. ca de hymnis Quia nonnulli hymni humano studio in laudem Dei, atque Apostolorum, & Martyrum triumphos compositiesse noscuntur, sicutij quos beatissimi Doctores Hylarius & Ambrose condiderunt, quos tamen quidam specialiter reprobant, pro to quod de scriptures sanctorum Canonum, vel Apostolica traditione non existunt; respuant ergo & illum hymnum ab hominibus compositum, quem in fine omnium Psalmorum dicimus, gloria & honour patri, & filio, & spiritus sancto, etc. Similiter & totum illud, quod sequitur post Angelicum hymnum, gloria in excelsis Deo, etc. quod tamen Ecclesiastici Doctores composuerunt, etc. I have the more willingly repeated the most part of the Canon, because it so fitly meeteth with the thwart humour of certain men of our time, who scoffingly and in contempt call those godly songs made by men (which are joined in the same volume with our singing Psalms) Ballads & Jigs and such like names, and can abide nothing but the Geneva Psalms (as they call them) to be sung in our Christian congregations. As if they certainly were God's word itself, & not rather expositions and paraphrases made by men. Thirdly; for the rites and ceremonies of those times it must be remembered that first for a long space in the church, they were judaical, either because men borne & brought up in the jewish pedagogy, Beza epist. 8. knew not what belonged unto Christian liberty, or else because many worthy and famous men in those days were of opinion, that all the jewish ceremonies, could not suddenly be abrogated, without the great offence & scandal of the weaker sort. Of which opinion it seems St. Augustine also was, who oftentimes praiseth and commendeth this saying, judaican Synagogam cum honore fuisse sepeliendam. Secondly it is to be observed, that they were diverse & sundry in diverse 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 urbibus, regionibusque usurpantur, scriptis mandare ut valdè laborio sum est, ita vix aut ne vix quidem fieri potest. Cuiusque 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 remembered that they were liberae observationis, no one Church prescribing to another, nor condemneth another for diversity of ceremonies, but every one following their own customs, and using that freedom that is agreeable to christian liberty. This point is fully proved by many particulars in the place formerly alleged out of Socrates, & most plainly delivered unto us, not only in the example of St. Ambrose, Cum Romam venio, ieiuno Sabbato, cum hic (Mediolani) sum, non ieiuno, Aug. ep. 118. ad januarium, but also by his advice and council commended to S. Augustine, Sic etiam tu ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi. Which advise and council of S. Ambrose, as often as St. Augustine thought upon, he always embraced as an oracle from heaven, because he had often found, and with much grief lamented, that many weak brethren were troubled by the contentious obstinacy, and superstitious fear of some men, who in those matters, which cannot certainly be resolved upon, neither by the authority of the scriptures, nor by the tradition of the universal church, became so troublesome that they thought well of nothing, but what they did themselves: Either because they had some sleight reason for there opinions, or because the custom of there Country was otherwise, or because they had seen things otherwise carried in some places where they had travailed, and therefore thought best of that, which they had learned furthest from home. Now out of these premises, we may gather this firm and sure Conclusion, That therefore the Ceremonies of those times were certainly of human ordinance: or, to speak more properly, of Ecclesiastical Constitution. For had God given any law concerning them, neither could the Jewish rites have continued so long, neither could they have been so diverse as they were, neither could they have been of so free observation, but that one church must needs have been scandalised by another. And although this were sufficient to infringe the Treatisers proposition: yet I will give the Reader a little taste of those things only, which antiquity hath always commended in this kind, that he may thereby be induced, to think the more reverently of Church Ceremonies. The translation therefore of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, and that men prayed with their faces towards the East, of whose ordinance and institution were they? Of the first St. Augustine plainly affirmeth. Aug. de Tem. Serm. 25. Apostoli & Apostolici viri, & sancti Doctores Ecclesiae, decreverunt omnem gloriam Iudaici sabbatismi, in illam transfer. The second also is very ancient as justine 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 meat, Cum autem illi manducarent accepit jesus panem, etc. From whence then is it, that now for six hundred years, it is received in the morning, & before men eat? For the former St. Augustine saith, Aug. ep. 118. ad Januarium. salvator quo vehementiùs commendaret mysterij illius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus, & memoriae discipulorum, à quibus ad passionem digressurus erat. Et ideo non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut Apostolis, per quos Ecclesias dispositurus erat, servaret hunc locum. For the latter he demandeth, Nunquid propterea calumniandum est universae Ecclesiae quod à ieiunis semper accipitur? ex hoc enim placuit spiritui Sancto, ut in honorem tanti sacramenti, in os Christiani prius Dominicum corpus intraret, quàm exteri cibi. This custom was in use therefore every where in his time, except only in some few parts of Egypt in the countries near unto Alexandria and Thebais, as Socrates observeth, Quos probabilis quaedam ratio delectavit, etc. as S. Augustine speaketh in the same Epistle. It was afterwards commanded in the third provincial council of Carthage, Aug. ad Jan. ep. 119. cap. 15. Tertull de coron mill. cap. 2. Can. 29. and lastly confirmed by the sixth general council in Trullo. The like may be said of the Jnstitution of Holly days, of Lent, of kneeling in the time of public prayer used all the year long, save only on Sundays and Pentecost, on which days the custom was, just. Mart. respon. ad orthod. qu. 115. orare stantes, to stand while they prayed, for such like reasons peradventure as justine Martyr yields for it. Lastly those ceremonies in prayer 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 ut totum hominem ostendas Deo? And those other spoken of by Tertullian, Illuc, Tertull. Apol. ca 30. & contra Judaeos cap. 10. idest in coelum, suspicientes, manibus expansis, capite nudo, genibus positis, manibus caedentibus pectus, fancy humi volutata. As also that they stood up at the reading of the Gospels, & kneeled at the Sacrament, what other ground had they then human Institution? And I trust that that ceremony of virorum prior, Bez. ep. 24. ad ●. foeminarum posterior ad mensam accubitus, and all those others, which our new reformers would have brought in, either in their standing, or sitting, or walking at the Communion, if they might have prevailed, in their general projects of a form of Church Liturgy, and of a Church discipline so often tendered to the Parliament, would in short time have proved no better, then human devises and inventions, though never so fairly coloured with the names of Apostolical customs, and honoured with the most glorious titles of, The most holy Discipline, the sceptre of Christ, and full placing of him in his kingdom. Concerning the second, that nothing becoming an Idol may lawfully be used in the service of God. Before I come to answer the proposition, I desire the Reader a little to observe the Treatisers phrase, and manner of speech. His phrase is becoming an Idol: will you know the reason? He had not spoken home enough, if he had only said being abused, for the word abused, would have implied a good use once, which the Treatiser perhaps will not admit that there was ever any of the Cross. Neither thought he it sufficient to say abused to Idolatry, for then perhaps, it would have been too hard a task for him to prove, that nothing abused to Idolatry may lawfully be used in God's service. And therefore there was no remedy, his phrase must needs be, becoming an Idol. But how, I pray you, may a human ordinance become an Idol? Do you intend by this speech a Metamorphosis, or Transubstantiation, whereby it ceaseth to be the nature it was, and is turned into a nature it was not? But that is clean against the Apostles mind, who saith that Idolum nihil est in mundo. 1. Cor. 8.4. Your meaning then must be, that by the cogitation and mind of men, ascribing deity to the ordinance, it was framed and made an Idol. For other essence and becoming it can have none. What then needed this far fetched speech becoming an Idol? But that perhaps you meant thereby to express your zeal, or rather, as I suppose, to astonish the ignorant, & make the sign of the Cross more suspected, and odious to the people. But leaving the Treatisers speech let us come unto his matter. And here I must debate a little with the Treatiser, whether the matter of an Idol, (for the form we see by the Apostles doctrine is none, but only in the mind and cogitation of the Idolater) whether I say, the matter of an Idol, being silver or gold, brass, lead, or stone, etc. after it is altered & reclaimed from the Jdolatrous use, may not aswell be used in God's service, as Churches, or Lands, or vessels may, which sometimes have been consecrated unto Jdols: I am of opinion it may. For as Tertullian speaketh, Apol. cap. 12. & 13. De simulachris ipsis nihil aliud deprehendo, quam materias sorores esse vasculorum, instrumentorumque comunium: and that therefore as they Jdolaters themselves, Publicos et domesticos deos publicâ et domesticâ potestate tractarunt, pignerando, vendicando, demutaudo in Cacabulum de Saturno, in trullam de Minerva, every man as his present will or necessity required, so we, abandoning the superstition, and embracing the Creature, which God at the beginning made good, may apply it to his service. My reason is this, while the jdol, & they things consecrated to the jdol, were both abused to Idolatry, they were both equally distant from God, and alike removed from his service, differing no otherwise, then that the jdol was the thing worshipped, and the consecrated thing, that where with it was worshipped. And suppose the jdol were a little farther estranged from God, and a step further in the power of the Devil, yet, Non desinit esse eius qui creavit, No creature of God can be so far alienated from him, ut non posset quando vult repetere. Nihil enim ita est sub potestate Diaboli, quin ad gloriam et honorem dei possit converti. If this be granted (and as I think it will not be denied) then this phrase to become an Idol, importeth in effect no more, then to be abused to idolatry, or to be consecrated to the service of an Jdol. Whereby it will come to pass, that whatsoever may be alleged, for the good and lawful use of things in God's service, that were sometimes abused to Idolatry, the same also may be alleged to prove, that even that thing also may have a good and right use in God's service, which sometimes hath been an Jdol itself. 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 plainly affirmeth, Maior est eiusmodi opera, quae non effigiem confert, sed authoritatem. Wisd. 13.16. And in very truth the Artificer that made it knoweth well enough, that it is but wood or stone, Minut. in octa. etc. Nondum Deus saxum est, lignum, aut argentum; Ecce ornatur, consecratur, oratur, tum postremò Deus est, cum homo illi valuit, & dedicavit, saith Minutius, The greatest fault than is in him, that by erecting, adorning, and adoring of it, procureth unto it the credit and opinion of a God. Aug. in Psal, 113. For by this means, Etiam qui non invenit vitalem motum, credit numen occultum: seductus forma, et commotus autoritate, sine vivo aliquo Habitatore esse non putat. Having laid this foundation, I come now to examine the Treatisers proposition. And first, if we consider it in Thesi, That nothing once abused, may ever after be well used, but must be utterly abrogated and rejected. It will easily appear to be most untrue, not only in things natural and artificial, which have been exceedingly abused: (for so wine must be gone, because it hath been abused unto drunkenness: meats, because some have abused them to gluttony: swords, because by some cruel hands they have been imbrued in innocent blood) but even in those things also, which are said to be the devises & inventions of profane & heathenish Jdolators, nay, even of the heathen God's themselves, which yet might be thought most unlike to be fitted to holy uses, for that they have proceeded from such corrupt fountains. Of things natural, Aug. Epist. 154 ad Publicolam. St. Augustine's opinion is, Si de areâ vel torculari tollatur aliquid ad sacrificia Daemoniorum, etiam sciente Christiano, tamen utitur mundis reliquis fructibus, unde illa sublata sunt, etc. Even as we use those fountains, out of which we most certainly know, that water is drawn for the use of sacrifices. Neither doubt we to fetch our breath from that air, into which we know, that the smoke of all the altars, and incense of Devils doth go. For we must beware, lest that if we shall suppose, that we may not eat those herbs which grow in the garden of the Temple of an jdol, it also follow, that we imagine, that the Apostles ought not to have eaten bread in Athens, because it was the City of Minerva, & consecrated to her Deity. This also may we answer of that well and fountain which is in the Temple, and of those sacrifices which are cast into the well and fountain: nay more, which are therefore cast into the water, to do sacrifice unto the waters, Neither must we therefore refuse the benefit of this light, because they sacrilegious, when so they can, cease not to sacrifice unto the same. Sacrifice also hath been offered unto the winds, which not withstanding we use to our manifold commodity, although they themselves seem as it were to draw in, and suck up the smoke of those sacrifices. Of artificial things likewise St. Augustine's judgement is the same. Neque enim propatria non est miles armandus quia contra patriam nonnulli arma sumpserunt. Nor therefore may not the good and skilful Physicians use medicinal irons for cure, and safety, because the unskilful and ill-disposed men, do use the same for death and destruction. Otherwise no iron were to be used either in house or field, for fear lest some man should therewithal slay himself, or others: nor must there be a tree, or a cord remaining, for fear lest any man should hang himself. Neither must we make any windows, for fear lest some one or other should cast himself headlong from the same. Tertullian also is of the same opinion, not only concerning those things, but of such things also as have been used and invented by the Pagan Gods. Tertull. de coron mill. cap. 8. For, Primus Mercurius literas excogitaverit, etc. Let it be so (saith he) that Mercury was the first that invented letters, yet for all that I will acknowledge them to be necessary, both for matters of commerce amongst men, and also for our studies towards God. Vide August. de doct. Christ li. 2 cap. 18. Nay, say also that he likewise invented Music, neither will I deny (knowing what David did) but that this invention also was agreeable to the Saints, & ministered in the service of God. Let Aesculapius be the first inventor of medicines: why, I remember that Esaie ministered a medicine of figs unto Ezechias being sick: and Paul could tell Timothy, that a little wine was good for his stomach, and for his many infirmities. Yea, and though Minerva also first framed a ship, yet I see that jonas and the Apostles sailed in ships. And, which is more, though every thing, and vessel necessary for our use, had one of the heathen Gods to be the author, yet that is no cause why Christ should not be clothed, or S. Paul not wear a cloak. And I must confess also that Christ lay upon a bed, and used a basin when he washed his Disciples feet: and that he powered water out of a pitcher, and was girded about with Linen, the stuff peculiar to Osiris. Lastly, Aristotle speaking of the use of Logic & Rhetoric. Arist Rhet. lib. 1. cap. 1. Si obijciatur (saith he) quòd valde nocebit is, qui utatur iniustè huiusmodi facultate rationum, why this is an ordinary objection against all good things (virtue only excepted) and most of all against those things, which are most profitable, as strength, health, riches, military discipline, etc. For these be things, which a man may do much good withal, if he use them justly; and exceeding much hurt, if he use them unjustly. The reason hereof is, because the evil using of good things, proceedeth only from the corrupt nature of the user, and therefore cannot alter the goodness of the creatures, which God hath made, and stamped upon them this mark, that God saw that every thing that he had made, was exceeding good. Gen. 1. The self same reason also holdeth in Hypothesi, to what thing so ever a man will apply it, and is most true even in the point we have now in question. Things abused to idolatry, nay even to make an Idol itself, have not therefore lost all manner of good & holy use, because the fault was not in the things so abused, but in them that abused them so. A proof hereof we have in the Apostle S. Paul, who used that thing in the service of God, whereof other men had made an Jdol. For I demand. The altar in Athens, having this inscription, unto the unknown God, was it not a thing consecrated to an Idol? Or rather, not to digress from the Treatisers phrase, was it not become an Idol itself? I suppose the Treatiser will not deny it: for S. Paul reckons it among their superstitions, because they worshipped, they knew not what. And did not S. Paul use it in the service of God? No doubt he did, when he took the Inscription thereof for the text and theme of his sermon. Whom you ignorantly worship, him show I unto you. Lastly, did he not use it lawfully in God's service? I am persuaded he did, both because the Athenians could not be better convinced, then by their own ignorant devotions and superstitions, and also because God gave a blessing to this sermon, in Dionysius Areopagite, and Damaris, and diverse others: according to the observation of Cassiodore in the Tripartite history. Hist. Tripart. lib. 9 cap. 29. Ille sancto spiritu ditatus, multos Atheniensium adduxit ad fidem, quando ea quae in ara erant scripta, sensu propria narrationis exposuit. If this example will not content our Treatiser, I remit him over to the 6. Chapter of josuah ver. 17. and likewise to the 6. Chapter of judges ver: 25. In the former place the City of jerico, and all the wealth therein was made Anathema, an execrable thing unto the Lord: & yet all the silver, & gold, and vessels of brass & iron were consecrated unto the Lord, and commanded to be brought into his Treasury. judge 6.25. In the latter place God commanded Gedeon to destroy the altar of Baal, and to cut down the grove that was by it, and yet he would also have the wood of the grove that was cut down, and the bullock that joas the father of Gedeon had stalled seven years, & had so long before ordained for a sacrifice unto Baal, to be offered to himself for a offering. And why all this? but to make it manifest that God is the Lord of all things, and that nothing can be so far gone into the power of the Devil, but it may be again reclaimed to the honour, & service of God. For although Moses in the golden Calf, and Ezechias in the brazen Serpent, showed each of them a memorable example of their religious zeal, and just anger against Idolatry: the one by burning the Calf in the fire, grinding it into powder, strowing it upon the water, and making the people drink thereof. The other by breaking the Serpent in pieces, and calling it Nehushtan, a vile and contemptible piece of brass: yet those actions rather commend the zeal of those good Princes, detesting the Idolatry and Idols themselves, then are any ways left for a necessary 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 utter 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 zeal, so it imposeth no necessity on other men to do the like: as may appear, not only by the two former examples commanded by God himself, but also by many other worthy, and famous reformations made by Christian Princes, in the Primitive Church. Among whom one Theophilus is commended in the Tripartite history, for faithfully performing the commandment of Theodosius the Emperor, who had given him commission, to destroy all the heathen Idols in Alexandria, & to employ the matter and riches of them, to good and holy uses. According to which commandment, Idola Deorum destructa à Theophilo, Hist. Tripart. lib. 9 cap. 27. ex mandato Theodosij Imperatoris, conflabantur adfaciendas ollas, & ad Alexandrinae Ecclesiae diversos usus, cui ab Imperatore 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 & Magistrates in their several times, might be alleged to this purpose. But I will conclude this point with the most judicious sentence and resolution of St. Augustine, whereby he confirmeth whatsoever I have spoken. Epist. 154 ad Publicolam. Cum templa, Idola, luci, etc. when Temples, Jdols, groves, or any things of like quality, by autorized power are ruinated and cast down, if they be translated into common, and not proper uses, & converted to the honour of the true God, that falleth out in them, which happeneth also in men, when as of sacrilegious and ungodly persons, they become pliable and conformed to the true religion. And well may we imagine, that God hath intimated and taught us this, in those testimonies which he laid before us, when he commanded that the wood which grew in the groves of strange Gods, should be used in the holocaust, and that all the gold, and silver, and brass of jerico, should be brought into the Lord's treasury. If this judgement of St. Augustine's be true, than it is as lawful to use the matter of an Idol, or to speak in the Treatisers language, that very thing that was become an jdol, in the service of God, if it be reclaimed and removed from Jdolatrous superstition, as it is for a man, from an Infidel to become a Christian, or from an evil and wicked man, to become a true convert, and faithful servant of God. And thus much to be answered to the Mayor. The Minor. But the sign of the Cross, being a human ordinance, is become an Idol. Answer to the minor. In the minor likewise there are two things comprehended. First that the sign of the Cross in Baptism is a human ordinance, which none of us ever denied, but do willingly acknowledge with Tertullian that, Si legem expostules scripturarum nullam invenies, etc. And yet we cannot see, how this may either advantage the Treatisers cause, or exclude the sign of the Cross, from being a lawful and commendable Ceremony, in the service of God. But for all that I must desire the Treatiser, that he and I may demur a little longer upon this point. For, notwithstanding all that is already granted, me thinks I may further say, that it is so a human ordinance, as it is also a divine. It is a divine ordinance, in as much as it is a part of that decency, which is commended unto us by the Apostle: and it is a human constitution, in as much as it doth particularly design that, which in the general was pointed at, rather than expressed. And this doctrine I learn of Mr. Caluine himself, Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. who giveth this rule, quia in externa disciplina, et ceremonijs etc. Because God in outward discipline, and Ceremonies, would not prescribe any thing severally for us to follow, (for that he foresaw that those things would depend most upon the condition of times, neither judged he one form agreeable to all ages) in this case we must resort to those general rules which he hath given, that according there unto, all things may be examined, what soever the necessity of the Church shall require to be commanded. Himself followeth this rule, and by the Ceremony of kneeling in the time of solemn prayers, which he useth as an example for illustration, he giveth us this general direction, how to judge of this whole matter of Ceremonies. Namely out of St Paul's general exhortation, 1. Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently & in order, to deduce every particular after this sort. Whatsoever Ceremony is done decently, and in order, is a part of St Paul's general exhortation, But the Ceremony of kneeling at solemn prayers, is done decently and in order, Ergo. It is a part of St Paul's general exhortation. Now because the Treatiser and his adherents, will hardly believe that this particular Ceremony of the Cross in Baptism, can as justly, as that of kneeling be deduced, and applied out of this general, I will out of Mt. Calvin's own grounds clear this point also. First this Ceremony of the Cross in Baptism, 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 reverence of holy mysteries, as it may also be a fit exercise to piety, or at the least, that it add a beauty or ornament fit and agreeable to the action. And that not without fruit, but so as it may admonish the faithful, with what modesty, religion, and observance, they should handle sacred things. All these parts of Decorun are in the Cross. It is agreeable to the reverent majesty of sacred mysteries. For what can be more agreeable to holy mysteries than the sign of that, which was the consummation, and accomplishment of all holy mysteries? Then the sign of that, whereon he hath nailed the Bill that was against us: through the blood of which Cross, he hath set at peace, both the things in earth, and the things in heaven. Secondly, it is a fit exercise unto piety. For, De sanct. ser. 19 de verb Apost. ser. 7. Tract. in joan. 118. Ad Christum rectà nos ducit, It leadeth us directly unto Christ and putteth us in mind of him that died for us, shadowing out unto us, the height, and breadth, length & depth of his love, as S. Augustine showeth in divers sermons. Thirdly, it is an ornament, Quia crux Christigloria Christiani. an ornament fit and agreeable to the action: The action is the receiving of the child, into the body of Christ, and therefore most agreeable it is, that the child should even then be signed, with the mark & badge of him, in to whose service he is presently received. Fourthly, it is not without fruit, but doth admonish the faithful, with what modesty, religion, and observance they should handle holy mysteries. Two things are commonly objected by the Treatisers friends against the sign of the Cross in Baptism. First that it is a vain & idle ceremony of no fruit, and to no purpose. Secondly, that by being significant, and symbolical, it bringeth a new word into the Church. These two objections do utterly thwart & overthrow each the other. Against the second, the judgement of Caluin in this condition is mainly opposite, who here requireth in the decency of every ceremony, that it be not without fruit, etc. intimating thereby, that such ceremonies, as are not significant, must needs be vain. Against the first: I am to answer now, & I doubt not but it will appear, to be of much fruit, and to very good purpose, if it do admonish us of these things. And that it so doth, I declare thus. First it admonisheth us of modesty, because it is as a watchword, & secret remembrance, to keep us from sin, the grand impugner of modesty, & mother of shame, bringing to mind, whatsoever Christ hath wrought, and we vowed against sin, and so causing that Christian men never want, a most effectual, though a silent Teacher, to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame. And for that cause it is made upon the forehead, Aug. tract in joan. 53. ubi est quodammodo sedes verecundiae; ut de nomine eius fides non erubescat, etc. That we should neither be so bashful, as to be ashamed of that, wherein there is no shame, nor so, sine front (as the same S. Augustine speaketh in another place) as not to fear that, In psal 141. which is the only deserver and bringer on of shame. Secondly, it doth admonish us of Religion, for those reasons alleged before in the condition. Sed, et si solum hoc significat, quod ait Apostolus, that they that belong to Jesus Christ, have crucified the flesh, with the lusts, and concupiscences thereof, how great a good turn were that alone? Thirdly, it doth admonish us with what observance holy things are to be handled, namely with an e●e, & due regard always had, to the easiness and familiarity of the Ceremony, that it be vicine, hard at hand, and obvious, nor far fetched, as profane ceremonies commonly are, but, admodum simplex, & praesentis admonitionis crucis Christi, as Mr. Bucer in his censure judgeth this to be. Again: this ceremony hath in it also that order which, in Mr. Calvines' opinion, St. Paul intendeth, because it is done with such moderation in our Church, as may justly take away all confusion, barbarity, contumacy, troubles, and dissensions▪ being so reduced to the first institution, as neither too much is ascribed unto it, as in the manifold superstitions of Popery: nor too little, or rather nothing at all, as in the confused fantasies of the Anabaptists. But you will say there are dissensions about this ceremony in our Church, true, but in whom is the fault? not in our Church, that by the order of this Ceremony, would take away all confusion, tumult, and dissension: but in those turbulent men, who will neither admit, ut qui praesunt, regulam ac legem benè regendi noverint, aut plebs quae regitur, ad obedientiam Dei, rectamque disciplinam assuefiat, which is the first thing required in order: nor suffer, ut bene composito Ecclesiae statu, paci et tranquillitati consulatur, which is the second. And these be the true causes, why they cannot content themselves with the good order of this Ceremony, but would have Novelties, and alterations brought into our Church. But I leave them to be better advised by the good counsel, and earned judgement of Mr Bucer. Bacee. de ording Minist Eccle. i● Aug cape●… * Ad illos autem qui offenduntur, unto such as be offended, because some usual rites are yet retained, we may well answer, that if they would but consider, how neither discipline, nor order can be preserved in the Church; without some Ceremonies, this might suffice to satisfy them: For if we grant that, which cannot be denied, that it is behoveful, for some Ceremonies to be, it is then a necessary consequent, that usual Ceremonies, which we may well use, cannot be reprehended, even for that sole antiquity, which doth procure them rather authority, than reproof with all men that be careful to continue the quietness of public peace, and fear to be taxed for levity, and affected novelties, which all together, as much as possibly it may, aught to be avoided, in the propagation of true doctrine. Lastly, this ceremony of the Cross in Baptism, hath in it all those other conditions both negative, and affirmative, that Mr. Calvin requireth in laudable Ceremonies. First negative, it is not thought necessary unto salvation, nor in that respect to bind the conscience. Secondly, it is not received with any opinion of divine worship thereto belonging. Affirmative, it is accompanied with that gravity, that is required in all honest actions. Thirdly, it is reverend, and may both procure a venerable regard to the mystery, and also be a help to stir us up to piety. Fourthly, it tendeth to edification. And lastly, that it may want no complement, it hath his general foundation in the Scriptures. And therefore by these rules of Mr. Calvin, may be well said to be both a divine, and human constitution. Divine, because it is founded upon S. Paul's general direction, Let all things be done decently & in order. human, because the continual use and practise of the Church, hath always thought this consignation of the Cross in Baptism, one of those Ceremonies that are performed with decency and order, & therefore judged this particular, to be fitly deduced out of that general. Secondly, that the sign of the Cross is become an Idol. And herein lurketh, the whole deceit of the Treatisers Sophism, who because it is confessed, that the Cross hath been abused among the Papists, and worshipped, cultu latriae, as himself afterward showeth, would thereupon infer, that therefore the sign of the Cross in Baptism, cannot be well used by us Protestants. Our answer therefore in few words is this; If he mean that the Cross is become an Idol, in the Church of Rome, we grant it. But what is that to us? If he mean that the sign of the Cross in Baptism, is become an Idol in the Church of England, we deny it: & then to what purpose is this Treatise? For whereas he would make our Cross in Baptism, the same that it is in the Church of Rome, both in name, and in form, and in religious, Pag. 14. though not Idolatrous use, as he speaketh, It will appear upon due examination to be utterly untrue. For to grant that they are the same in name (for they are both called Crosses: & in form (for they are both cross lines drawn in the air, and yet I must tell the Treatiser, that their using many Crosses in the same thing, doth diversificare formam, make the form divers from us that use but one) yet the religious use of them is notoriously different. For first, they give unto their Cross divine power, and virtue, as if it could sanctify things crossed therewith, drive away Devils, heal infirmities, & fence us from all manner of danger: we ascribe no such virtue or power unto ours. Secondly, they yield unto their Cross, ability to merit pardon for venial sins, to convert sinners, and to give salvation: we yield no such ability, or efficacy unto ours. As for their Idolatrous use, whereby they adore and worship their Cross, cultu latriae, we much more dissent from them, and are far from giving any adoration, or either outward or inward service unto ours. So as it seems the Treatiser was not well advised when he said, their cross & our cross is the same in religious use, for neither did he remember (as I shall tell him hereafter) that we put no religion in the use of the Cross, as the Papists do, but only use it in a religious action: neither I believe (if he were well put to it) could he show the difference between the religious use, wherein he saith we agree with the Church of Rome, & the Idolatrous use, Lact. li. 4. c. 28. wherein they differ from us. For if Religio be veri cultus, and Superstitio falsi, as Lactantius distinguisheth, I should think that our use, being veri cultus, were only religious, and theirs being nothing else, but falsi cultus, were only Jdolatrous, and superstitious. But I leave the full sifting & examining of these points to there proper place. In the mean time I make this observation, out of the Treatisers own mouth, that, contrary to his aimed intent, & purpose in this syllogism, he freeth us from all Jdolatrous use of the Cross: whence, against the malignity of this Miner proposition, I gather this Conclusion out of the Treatisers own words. That which hath not an Idolatrous use in our Church, is not an Idol in our Church. But the sign of the Cross hath not an Idolatrous use in our Church. Ergo. The sign of the Cross, is not an Idol in our Church. The Mayor is plain, for Idolum, & Idolatria are Relatives, Posito uno, ponitur et alterum, For neither can an Idol be, but where Idolatrous use is, neither Idolatrous use, but where an Idol is. The Minor is the Treatisers own proposition, and the truest proposition in his book, and therefore the Conclusion must needs directly follow of the premises. The Conclusion. Ergo, The sign of the Cross may not lawfully be used in the service of God. Answer to the Conclusion. The Conclusion of every syllogism receiveth his virtue and strength of the premises, which being firm & true, it standeth good, being weak and false, it faileth, & is of no effect. The Mayor therefore of this syllogism being false every way, as hath been declared; and the Minor being untruly fitted, and applied, to the sign of the Cross in Baptism, used in our Church, This Conclusion striketh without any force, and missing the body, lighteth into the air and hurteth not. And for any thing in this syllogism contained, the Cross may be still both lawfully and commendably used in the service of God. And thus much for answer to the main syllogism, the ground and foundation of this Treatise. The Treatise. 1. Sect. The use of the Cross in Baptism is not a thing indifferent, but utterly unlawful, for this reason; It is against the Apostles precept. 1. Joh. 5.21. Babes keep yourselves from Idols. Answer. From the main syllogism, the Treatiser cometh to the proof, first of his mayor, and then of his minor. Proof of the Mayor. For so he telleth us in the margin, and we must needs believe the margin, because it telleth us so in Capital letters. For otherwise if we look upon the words prefixed immediately before his proof, we shall find a proposition, that is neither the Mayor nor the Minor of the former syllogism, but a mixture & composition of them both, for it hath the terms of unlawful used in the Mayor, & of the Cross en Baptism used 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 believe the Margin than the Text. And that the Treatiser may in some honest sort seem to conclude his fundamental proposition, I frame his argument after this manner. That which is against the Apostles precept, Babes keep yourselves from Idols, may not lawfully be used in the service of God. But the use of an Idol is against the Apostles precept, Babes keep yourselves, etc. Ergo: The use of an Idol is not lawful in the service of God. The Mayor proposition I grant to be true, but upon these conditions. 1 That you take the word against, in his proper signification, for contrary or opposite unto: & not for praeter besides, or otherwise then the Apostle prescribeth, as most of your friends and favourites do. 2 That hereupon you be not too insolent, and infer this contrary conclusion, Ergo, Nothing may be used in the service of God, but that which is in the Apostles precept. For there are many things laudably used in God's service, whereof the Apostles have given no precept. For whereas the Apostle St. Paul promised the Corinthians, other things will I set in order when I come, and yet never after disposed, or set in order those other things, for aught that appeareth in any of his writings, our undoubted persuasion is, that both the Apostles left many things unordered and undisposed: & also in matters of Ceremony, belonging to order, decency, and edification, there is always 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 I answer, that the use of an jdol, quatenus an Idol, that is, while it is an Idol, or as long as it retains the form, credit, and estimation of an jdol, is indeed against the Apostles precept: but this is no hindrance, why we may not use that thing in God's service, which is now reclaimed from the Idolatrous use, though we certainly know, that it was sometimes used as an Idol, as before hath been declared. For those things which are recovered out of the evil uses, whereunto they were applied, and restored to holy uses in God's service; Ipso ministerio consecrata sancta dicuntur, in eius honore, Aug. in ps. 113▪ cui pro nostrâ salute inde servitur. But let us now see how the Treatiser doth first explain the sentence of S. john in this next section, & afterward confirm his explanation in the third. Treatise. 2. Sect. For the explanation where of two things are to be scanned. First, what is meant by an Idol. Secondly how far we are to keep ourselves from Idols, An Idol is, Quicquid praeter Deum diviuo colitur honore: and though some restrain an Idol, to a visible form, because it is derived, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: yet, as a learned writer observeth, Zanch. de redemp. li. 1. c. 17. Qui de omnibus idololatriae generibus acturi sunt, latius nomen Idoli accipiant necesse est. Idoli igitur nomine intelligitur, quicquid homo vel simpliciter vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sibi extra verum Deum proponit, fingitque colendum. Neither is this spoken without good reason, for nothing is properly an Idol, quatenus est visibilis forma, sed quatenus religiosè colitur. If therefore it be worshipped, it may be an Idol, though it be no visible shape: otherwise the worshipping of Angels & the souls of the just men, were no Idolatry, seeing these are invisible spirits. And therefore the sign of the Cross, if it be religiously worshipped, may prove an Idol, though it be, transiens quiddam, a thing vanishing in the air, and no permanent form. For as that learned Zanchie speaketh, there is, duplex Idolum, the one real, the other, imaginarium & tantum mente conceptum. For answer to the second Question. Men may keep themselves from Idols two ways, viz. a cultu, & ab usu Idoli, from the worship, and from the use of the Idol. For the first St. Paul is so strict, that he alloweth not the Christians, so much as to be present in the Temple, at the Idolatrous feasts, though they did it without any internal opinion, or external action of worshipping the Idol. But john in this place doth not speak so much of the worshipping, as the use of the Idol, for (as Augustine in psal. 113. well observeth) the Apostle commandeth, ut caveant 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 themselves. Now the use of an Image or Idol may be civil, or religious: and both of them, public, or private. That an Image, even such an Image as is Idolatrously worshipped, may be made and retained for civil respects, of ornament, story, or such like, we make no question, though the tolerating of them in open and public places, even extra cultum, be offensive, and turn into a snare, as Geacons' Ephod was to his posterity, when it was abused to Idolatry. And upon this ground we yield, that though the Cross be apparently an Idol, yet in Prince's banners, coronations, coin, Crown, or any other civil respect, it may have lawful use. But that anything of man's devising, being worshipped as an Idol, should be used, Religionis ergô, and in the worshipping of God, seemeth directly against St. john's precept▪ for, how do I keep myself from the Idol, or, how do I show my zealous detestation of that filthy Idolatry, when I retain it, & use it so honourably as in the Temple, in the Sanctuary, in the service of God? Which interpretation of this place of St. john, the Church of England doth, on the warrant of Tertullian, approve & commend. Answer In the explanation of the first point, what is meant by an Idol, I see not any great matter to be dissented in, from the Treatiser: only I perceive not, how by any of these descriptions the Cross may be made an Idol: neither in the explanation of his second point, how we are to keep ourselves from the Idol, is any thing greatly to be reproved, so long as he speaketh of keeping ourselves, a cultu Idoli, from the worship of the jdol: only I must tell him, that those words, which he citeth out of St. Augustine's words, upon the 113. Psalm, ut caveant non tantum etc., either are not St. Augustine's upon that Psalm, or else my book and his do disagree. For I have diligently fought for them, all that Psalm over, but cannot find them: which I do not observe, as if I took exception against the Treatiser: for, facilis est error, a man may easily miss in a quotation: or against the words themselves, let them be St. Augustine's, or the Treatisers, or any other man's; and let them forbid both the worship, & use of Idols, as much as they can, we mislike both the one, and the other, as highly as the Treatiser himself doth. The things that in this section I take exception unto, are in those points he delivereth, de usu Idoli, as: 1 These words. That an Image, even such an Image, as is Idolatrously worshipped, may be made, and retained for civil respects of ornament, and such like, there is no question though the tolerating of them, in open and public places, even extra cultum, be offensive, & turn into a snare, etc. The first part, That they may be made and retained for civil respects of ornament or such like, we easily grant: but those other words, Though the tolerating of them, be offensive, & turn into a snare, sound harsh in mine ears, not only because they contain a flat contradiction to the Treatisers own words a little after, where he saith, that without doubt, the meaning of the second commandment is, to bind the Church from all such snares, and allurements to sin, and that all occasions & means leading thereunto, are likewise prohibited: but especially, because they contain a contradiction to the truth. For what else gave occasion to Jdolatry at the first, but the vain glory of men, making statues, and portracts of their triumphs, and for the memory of them whom they loved? Which at the first were civil respects, but when they came to be a snare, were no better than Jdols. Had the Treatiser well observed the nature of the words, which he here delivereth, he would have found, that nothing is Scandalum, offensive, or a stumbling block, till it be set to make men stumble: nor a snare, till it be laid to catch and entangle. Such things are no longer tolerated, then while they retain their civil respects: if once they become offensive, and snares, Isa. 57.14. than God commandeth presently, Cast up, cast up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling blocks out of the way of my people. Again, if this speech of the Treatisers be true, as he makes no question, what reason hath he to be more friendly to an Image, even such an image as is Jdolatrously worshipped though etc. then to our Cross in Baptism, which is neither an image, nor Idolatrously worshipped, nor retained, cum opinione cultus, nor offensive, or a snare to any, but such as willbe offended without cause? If either I in this answer, or any other of the conformable Clergy, should suffer this, or such a like speech to fall from us we straightway should be reckoned Antichristian, and Popish, and favourers of Jdolatry: but our Treatiser, & his friends, may say what they will, and yet always be commended. The next words immediately following are as lavish as the former. Upon this ground we yield, that though the Cross be apparently an Idol, yet in Prince's Banners, etc. First, your ground is weak, as even now we declared, & then if the Cross be apparently an Idol, neither Princes Banners, nor Crown, nor Coin, nor any other civil respect, can make it have a lawful use. Your perpetual arguing from secundum quid ad simpliciter, doth bewray an exceeding desire to deceive both others, and yourself. For, be it granted, that the Cross is an jdol secundum quid, that is, according to the use of the Church of Rome, will you thence conclude simplicitèr, that therefore the Cross, among whom, and wheresoever, and used howsoever, is apparently, & simply an jdol? who seethe not the childishness of this caption? 3 The third speech argueth the Treatiser to be both injurious, and ma●tious. Jniurious, in that he saith, that the Cross, a thing of man's devising, being worshipped as an jdol, is used by us in the worship of God; for neither use we that thing, which is worshipped as an jdol, because there is nothing like between our Cross, & their Cross but the name only, as is before declared in the answer to the minor: neither do we use the Cross, as a thing to worship God thereby, but only as a thing to put us in remembrance of our duty. Malicious, in that he saith, it is used by us, Religionis ergô, for Religionis ergô in this place, is the same phrase with Religionis causae afterwards: And in my understanding is properly Englished, for the Religion's sake, or because of the Religion, that we suppose to be in it: and therefore the Treatiser doth but double, and dissemble, when he translateth Religionis ergô, to retain it, and use it, so honourably as in the Temple, in the Sanctuary, in the service of God. For out of what Authors can he show, that to use a thing, Religionis ergô, signifieth to use a thing in the outward service of God the Treatiser knows well enough, that these speeches differ, & bear not the same meaning: and yet is content to fasten upon us, that we use the Cross Religionis ergô, which is a most malicious calumniation. And I must tell him the more plainly of this juggling, because he useth it very much, and thinks it a fit bait to catch the simple. True it is, we use the sign of the Cross, in a religious action, namely in Baptism, but we use it not Religionis ergô, with any conceit or opinion of Religion, that we ascribe unto it; and this I give the Reader as a perpetual caveat, against the grand imposture of the Treatiser. In vain therefore is that which he addeth of the Church of England, approving & commending of Tertullians' interpretation of this place of john, worthily it is approved, and commended, as most fit and agreeable thereunto. Tertullian never meant those words against the sign of the Cross in Baptism, of which he always speaketh most honourably: neither doth the Church of England in that Homily, otherwise apply his testimony, then to the detestation both of the service or worshipping, and also of the very shapes and likeness of the Images or Idols themselves, his words there, are effigies & imago as the same Homily doth well observe. Our Cross is neither of them both. Treatise. 3. Sect. And this point is further strengthened by the second commandment, which forbiddeth not only to worship, but even to make an Image, or any similitude whatsoever, to wit ad cultum, or for religious use, as according to the scripture the best interpreters, partly against Images in Churches, partly on the words of the precept do most naturally expound it. For surely if Idolatry itself, as a most execrable thing, be forbidden, than all occasions & means leading thereunto are likewise prohibited, & what stronger provocation to that spiritual whoredom, them erecting Images, in the place of God's worship? Plus enim, ut 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, non videbunt, non audient, non odorabunt, non tractabunt, non ambulabunt. And therefore without doubt, the meaning of the commandment is, to bind the Church from all such snares & allurements to sin. And therefore doth Augustine in quaest. super Leu. q. 68 well conclude from this commandment, that such making of an Idol, can never be just or lawful. Now if no similitude at all be tolerable in God's service, then much less any that hath been, and is worshipped idolatrously. Tertullian against the Gnostics, accounted them Idolaters not only which worshipped, but those also which made and retained Images (nempe ad cultum, or for holy use) and in his book, de Idololatria, he vehemently reproveth the very makers of Images, though they did not themselves worship them, which showeth in what execration the Primitive Church held any religious use of an Idol. The like we may find in Epiphanius, ad Johannem Episcopum Hierosol. where he reporteth, that finding an Image of Christ or some Saint hanging at a Church door, he rend it in pieces, avouching, that to hang 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. Fron hence I conclude, that if the godly fathers were so vehement against the erecting of the Images of Christ, & of Saints, even at that time, before any worship was given unto them: Much more would they withstand it now after men have made Idols of them. And if they would not suffer an Idol, so much, as in the place of God's worship: would they endure themselves to use such an Idol as the Cross in the service and sacraments of God? Their zeal against that spiritual fornication, would never permit them so highly to honour such an execrable thing: neither was their zeal herein without ground of knowledge, for the spirit of God in Psal. 115.8. speaking of Idols, They (saith he) that make them, are like unto them, and so are all they that trust in them. Where a plain difference is made between makers, and worshippers of Idols, and both condemned as Cursed transgressors of the Law. Shall any than make the Idol of the Cross, & that Religionis causa, and yet be innocent? Questionless by David's example, we must make no mention, that is, keep no honourable memory of an Idol, & therefore without doubt, not give it so much honour as to use it, or the memorial thereof in the house of God, & in his holy worship: Isa. 50.22. but as Isai: saith, we must pollute the relics, & the very covering and ornament of the Idol, and cast them away as a menstruous cloth, & say unto it. get thee hence. Answer. The Treatiser confirms his explanation of the sentence of St. john by the second Commandment, & by the testimonies of S. Augustine, Tertullian, & Epiphanius thereunto applied. Wherein giving way to his allegations, because they are only against Jdolatry, and making of images to worship them, I only mark his 'scapes, and overreaching, whereof the first is in these words Ad cultum, or for Religious use: where I note, that how soever in words, he would feign make Cultus, and religious use different things, that so he might seem to follow his proposed division, de cultu et usu, yet in his proofs he makes them both one; A manifest argument, that in all this discourse he never cometh near our use, of the Cross in Baptism, which is so far from Cultus, and religious use, (as he understands it) that we neither worship it, nor suppose any religion to be in it, as I said even now. A second scape of his, is in this conditional Collection, upon the second Commandment, and testionnies of St. Augustine, If no similitude at all, be tolerable in God's service, then much less any, that hath been, and is worshipped Idolatrously. For whereas the second Commandment, & all his proofs there upon, run mainly against Cultus, or religious use, (which to him are both one) he cannot thence conclude, that therefore the use of some similitudes, in a religious action, without any worship ascribed unto them, or opinion of religion reposed in them, is not tolerable. For by this general restraint, beyond the nature of his proofs, he may as well exclude the use of Sacraments out of God's service, which certainly are some kind of similitudes, of those things which they do represent: according to that of St. Augustine, Aug. ep. 23. ad Bonifacium. Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sunt sacramenta non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Again his illation and inference upon this supposition, is likewise false: for though that were true: yet some thing, that hath been heretofore Idolatrously worshipped, may lawfully be tolerated now; and some thing that even now is Idolatrously worshipped, (which yet is not granted of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, as shall hereafter appear) may be lawfully tolerated in some other, that are free from all conceit of idolatry, as formerly hath been declared. Thirdly, he over-reacheth in his collection upon the words of Tertullian and Epiphanius, where he asketh, would they endure themselves to use such an jdol as the Cross, in the service and sacraments of God? We answer, they would, such an jdol, as our Cross is: And we are persuaded that both they, & St. Augustine too, would like it well enough. When they should perceive, that without opinion of superstition, or efficacy ascribed unto it, it were reclaimed to the very same symbolical or ceremonial use, it had in their times, howsoever in the times between them and us, it hath been abused by some to idolatry. Epiphanius misliketh it not in his time, Epiph. lib. to. 2. contra haeres. Ebionis. as may appear in that narration he maketh of Josephus. Tertullian, we are sure, would endure it well enough, who so often & willingly mentioneth it and in all his writings commendeth the use of it, Tertull. de coron ●il. cap. 3. Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum & exitum, ad vestitum & calceatum, ad lavacra, ad men sas, ad lumina, ad cubicula, ad sedilia, quaecunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terminas. T.C. lib. 1. Insomuch that T. C. pronounceth (full rashly & without all cause) that the Lord left a mark of his curse upon it, for coming out of the forge of man's brain, & being so much abused. Aug serm. 181. de temp. And for St. Augustine's 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 he saith. Quod ipse honoraturus erat fideles suos in fine huius saculi, prius honoravit crucem in hoc saeculo, etc. Quod cum magna Insultatione persecutores Judaei Domino procurarunt, cum magna fiducia seruieius, etiam & reges in front nunc portant. And yet notwithstanding all this, we are as well, and better persuaded of their vehemency against erecting of images, and of their zeal against spiritual fornication, than the Treatiser is, & can more easily be induced to believe, that their zeal herein was not without knowledge, than these men can so slenderly acquaint themselves with their knowledge, or zeal: and as in this: so in all other points, never cite any testimony out of them sincerely, and according to their meaning. Fourthly▪ the Treatiser much overlasheth, where he marshal's us among the worshippers of Idols, Concluding that strain of his with this forcible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall any then make an Idol of the Cross? and that Religionis causâ, and yet be innocent? True it is. The prophet David saith. They that make them are like unto them, etc. but what? is his meaning that they are like unto them for simply making them? I trust no: for then how will you justify your former words? that an Image may be made and retained for Civil respects, we make no question: His meaning is them, They that make them to worship them, Wisd. 13.17. and to put their trust in them, as all Idolatrous makers do, are like unto them, we make the Cross indeed, but neither to worship it nor to put our trust in it: And therefore I hope are no more to be Condemned as cursed Transgressor's of the Law, than you are when you writ the letters of T. C. name, which you cannot do but you must needs make a Cross. And I think verily, that you put more religion in this T. then our Church doth in the sign of the Cross. As for your Cram of Religionis causâ, it is answered before, 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 sign of the Cross be adored: & so made an Idol: let him well consider the tract of Bellarmine, de adoratione crucis, where distinguishing the Cross 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 Christ's Cross, into the Image, & sign of the Cross, so that if the Image of the Cross be taken for an Idol, (& who knoweth not that it is the universal Idol of Popery, & to be adored, even cultu latriae, which worship, as they themselves hold, is due only unto God,) the sign of the Cross must needs be taken for no better. Besides, the same Bellarmine having, De Imag. l. 1. 30 as is said, distinguished the cross into three sorts, the true Cross, the image of the Cross, and the sign of the Cross, he layeth down this doctrine generally of them all, omnes cruces adoramus, and particularly of the sign of the Cross he saith, De Imag. lib. 2 cap. 29. signum crucis quod in front, vel in aere pingitur, esse sacrum & venerabile. To this agreeth Pontiformus Sarisb. 4. where it is thus professed, adoramus crucis signaculum, per quod salutis sumpsimus sacramentum. And that the Image, & sign of the Cross, is of one, & the same account with Papists, Confer. with Hart. cap 8. divis. 4. pag. 509. appeareth evidently, as by divers, so particularly by Hart. For Doctor Raynolds, showing that the Church of England, hath justly left the sign of the Cross out of the supper, for the Idolatry thereof, doth prove that it is worshipped as an Idol, by such testimonies, as indeed belong to the image of the Cross, which Hart no way excepted against, doth imply, that look what estimation they have of the Image, the same they have of the sign: & what honour 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 regard of the matter, wherein the Cross is painted, or the colour whereby it is shadowed, but only & simply, for the expressing of the likeness of Christ's Cross, & for the representing of Christ crucified (which the sign performeth as well as the image) that they adore the Cross with the same honour, that is due unto Christ himself: And this no doubt was the meaning of Aquinas, when he saith, Th' Aquin part 3. q. 25 artic. 4. that every effigies or likeness of the Cross (whereof the sign is one) is to be adored cultu latriae: and Costerus doth avouch, that the same worship is due to the sign, as belongeth to the very Cross of Christ. When he saith (though falsely) Christiani, Coster. Euch. cap. 11. à Christi temporibus, semper summa veneratione coluerunt ipsum signum dominicae crucis, & signum crucis, quo se quotidie muniunt, Mark that the sign of the Cross is worshipped, summa veneratione, Orth. explis. lib. 9 with the highest degree of honour, and, as Andradius in express words saith, In the same manner, that the Image of Christ himself is worshipped: then the which, what can be more clear to prove, that not only the Image, but the sign of the Cross, is by Papists most Idolatrously worshipped? If any say, that to the sign of the Cross none boweth the knee, or vaileth the bonnet, and therefore it is not adored. I answer first, that adoration is intern, and extern: and the extern adoration is therefore Idolatry, because it proceedeth from the intern, as Zanchius very learnedly, Zanch. de redempt. lib. .. c. 17 and largely showeth. If a man may invocate to an Angel, or give any honour internal to a creature, shall it not be called Idolatry, except he bow outwardly unto it? How then doth Paul say that Covetousness 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 giveth unto it intern confidence, which is due unto God, it is truly called his Idol, as unto the Sardanapali there belly is termed their God: Right so the Papists ascribing to the sign of the Cross, that honour, & confidence which belongeth to God, do make it an execrable Idol, Quaest. disput. de venial p●ce. & so most unfit to stand in the sanctuary, or to be annexed to the holy things of God. For first they ascribe unto the sign of the Cross, power & virtue to merit pardon, at the least for venial sins, as appeareth by Tho. Aquinas, Bellarmine, and the Rhemistes. Also it is held, to partake of power efficient, and immediately operative, and that to convert sinners: Martial de cruse. fol. 114. 115. yea to gain salvation, Hosius contra Brent: pag. 227. and generally the whole rabble of Romish Doctors, do teach to put great affiance in this sign, for chase away devils, and curing diseases, and sanctifying both man, and other Creatures to the use of man. Secondly I say indeed, they do give outward, aswell as inward worship to the Cross. For it is apparent, that they invocate it, in the same manner, that they invocate Saints, when they say. Per crucis hoc signum fugiat procul omne malignum. By this sign of holy Cross, let evils all fly far from us. Again by the sign of the holy Cross, from our enemies deliver us o Lord our God. Also in another place, victorious Cross and admirable sign, make us triumph and joy in heavenly Courts divine yea in prayers, they join at with jesus Christ, as in officio Missae, is to be seen, where they supplicate, per misericordam jesu Christi, per auxilium & signum Crucis, per intercessionem beatae Mariae, etc. They couple it also with the blood of Christ, in these words, defend me jesus ab omnibus vitijs, malis praeteritis, praesentibus, & futuris, per signum sanctae crucis, & per in aestimabile pretium justi, & pretiosi sanguinis tui. All which doth most manifestly prove, that among the Papists it is religiously honoured, both with inward confidence, and outward reverence. Answer. Though all that the Treatiser allegeth in this section, should be granted, yet nothing is concluded against our Cross. For whereas his conclusion should be this, Ergo. the sign of the Cross in Baptism, as it is used in the Church of England, is an Idol, he bringeth us only this conclusion, Ergo. the sign of the Cross, in the Church of Rome, is an Idol, his argument is this. What soever the Church of Rome doth adore, with divine honour, & whereunto it yieldeth both intern confidence, & outward worship, is an Idol, But the Church of Rome doth adore the sign of the Cross with divine honour, & yieldeth unto it intern confidence, & outward worship, Ergo. The sign of the Cross, in the Church of Rome, is an Idol. The Mayor is false. What soever the Church of Rome doth adore, etc. For so the bread in the Lord's supper, should likewise be an Idol, because the Church of Rome doth adore it, with divine honour, and yieldeth both intern confidence, and outward worship thereunto, as is better objected, then answered in the first objection. Again, if unto those words, whatsoever the Church of Rome doth adore etc. is an Idol, you had added those words, in the Church of Rome, your Mayor had been true, & we should not have denied it. But from secundum quid, to conclude ad simpliciter, (as you always do,) is too simple a Conclusion to deceive any man, that is but a mean Logician: we cannot grant that their is, eadem ratio urbis et orbis: nor that that must needs be an Idol in every place, that the Church of Rome hath made an Idol within her own jurisdiction. Touching the Minor, we partly grant it, and partly deny it: we grant it, De signo crucis materiali, such as were Crucifixes, of wood, stone, or metal, & plain Crosses of all sorts, without the Image of Christ. And so we understand all your proofs, two only excepted, whereof you shall hear our answer by and by. De signo, or rather the consignatione crucis immateriali, drawn in the air, or upon the forehead, without any print remaining, we deny it, and answer to your two proofs, the one out of Bellarmine: Signun crucis quod in front, Velure 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 between veneratio, the word that they use in those places, and adoration, the word that you apply unto them; The first expressiing only a reverent regard, that they have of the sign; The other a religious worship, which you say, they yield unto it. I will not take upon me their defence, nor justify their absurdities, for I willingly acknowledge, that they have too too superstitiously thought of this consignation also, and extended their summa veneratio, to the highest degree of superstitious opinion, in ascribing too much power, virtue and efficacy thereunto, as you declared in the second place of this Section. But yet I cannot be persuaded, that signum sacrum & venerabile, or summa veneratio, as they call it, do signify adoration, with divine honour, or intern confidence, and outward worship, as you affirm, Three things therefore I answer to the Minor. First, That the Papists do indeed very superstitiously deem, of the consignation of the Cross in Baptism, that it is of virtue, force, & efficacy, which we do utterly & in plain term deny. Secondly, I suppose that the Treatiser will never be able to prove that the consignation of the Cross in Baptism, (even in the grossest time of Popery) was ever made an Idol, or had any divine adoration, or intern worship or extern honour exhibited unto it. For first, how could it, the thing ceasing to be, as soon as ever it was made? and then, who should worship it? The child could not, the Priest & people reflected rather their devotion to their material wooden Crosses, and metal Crucifixes, which they had ever at hand, then to this immaterial transient mark. Ac certum est, Zanch de redemp. li. 1. c. 17 omnes ferè Idololatras solitos semper fuisse, neque Deum, vel verum, vel falsum, vel ullam creaturam, externa adoratione colere, & adorare, nisi sub, & in aliquâ figurâ illum representante, and so far only holdeth that, Tho. Aqu p 3. ● 25. 4. cap. which you allege out of Tho. Aquinas, that every effigies, or likeness of the Cross, is to be adored, with the same honour, that is due unto the Prototypon: namely, if it be effigies, a material shape or similitude, which remaineth post opus, not the immaterial effigiatio, or signing, that passeth, and leaveth no impression, after the Action. Eph. 5 6. Coll. 3.5. Phillip 3.19. As for your allegations out of St. Paul, that covetousness is Idolatry and that unto the Sardanapali, their belly is their God, the comparison is not equal. For the divine honour, that you conceive to be founded in consignatione crucis, is grounded only upon a thing transient, & imaginary, but contrariwise, the Idolatry of the covetous man, and felicity of the belly-god, are both founded in materiali obiecto, upon a real, & not upon an Imaginary foundation; Zanch. de redemp lib. 1. cap. 17. avarus tribuit the sauris suis quod proprium est Dei, & Sardanapalus saginae suam foelicitatem. Thirdly, I affirm, that though Popery hath esteemed superstitiously of the Cross in Baptism, which we confess, and given divine honour unto it, which we think may very probably be denied: yet our consignation in Baptism, is altogether different from theirs, as before hath been declared in the answer to the Minor of the main Syllogism. Treatise. 5. Sect. And therefore if their Idols, may in no sort be annexed to the service of our God, the Cross in Baptism ought necessarily, to be crossed, and cursed out of our Liturgy. Answer. This is that, you have all this while hovered about, & yet can find no fit Medius terminus to conclude. For how will these two propositions hang together? The sign of the Cross in the Church of Rome is an Idol, (which hath been the only thing you have proved in the former section.) Ergo: The consignation of the Cross in Baptism, used in the Church of England, must needs be crossed and cursed out of our Liturgy? You undertake to leap too far at once, there are many banks in your way: you must prove, first that the sign of the Cross in Baptism, in the Church of Rome, is an Idol, which is not granted. Secondly, you must prove, that our Cross, and their Cross in Baptism is all one, in number, nature, use & estimation: you must lastly prove, that we may not lawfully redeem, an ancient Ceremony, out of his abuse, nor restore him, to his ancient lawful use again: all which, I fear, or any of them, willbe too hard a task for you to undertake, but your present argument is this. The Idol of the church of Rome, may in no sort be annexed to the service of our God, but must be crossed, & cursed out of our Liturgy. But the sign of the Cross in Baptism, is an Idol of the Church of Rome. Ergo: The consignation of the Cross in Baptism, in the Church of England, must be crossed and cursed out of our Liturgy. The Mayor is granted. The Minor is denied; for first, as was said before, you will not be able to prove, that their immaterial consignation with the Cross in Baptism, was ever made an Idol: and if you chance so to do, yet sure I am you will never prove, our consignation of the Cross in Baptism, to have been an Idol of the Church of Rome; your conclusion therefore, and your premises are so far a sunder, that they will never be reconciled. It seems your crossing and cursing hath lighted upon your own conclusions, they are so cursedly crossed, and crossedly cursed, that they conclude nothing plainly and directly. Treatise. 6. Sect. Neither is it sufficient to say that the Cross amongst us, is neque numero, neque usu, the same that theirs is, and though theirs be an Idol, yet ours is not. For when God commanded his people, to break down the Images of the heathen, and to extinguish the very name of them, had they performed that charged, if they had burnt all the Idols of Canaan, and afterward made new of the same form, and to another use, though not Idolatrous, yet religious? Or how have we discharged our duties, and showed our detestation of that filthy Idolatry, if having defaced all the Popish Crucifixes, and Idols, we erect them new in our Church, though not to worship them, yet to any other holy use whatsoever? Answer. If this be not a sufficient answer, than you may make it more sufficient by adding neque aestimatione, neque opinione religionis, as hath been taught you before; But why is this reason unsufficient? Your reason is, For when God commanded, etc. To your first demand I answer, no. And yet that toucheth us not. The things compared are nothing like. They should have destroyed the old Idols, and not have made new: we make no new Idol, but restore an ancient Ceremony of the church, to his first integrity: which we take we may lawfully do. To your second I answer likewise▪ That we erect no new Popish Crucifixes, and Idols in our Church, but restore an ancient constitution of the Church, to the reverend use of the consignation of the Cross in Baptism: Not to worship it, nor yet to ascribe virtue unto 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 Cross, and theirs is the same both in name, & form, but not in use, for than were it Idolatrous; Now I do not say that the Church of England doth commit Idolatry: but that it ought to abstain, not only from the Idolatry, or worship, but even from all religious use, of such human ordinances, and inventions, which others have & do Idolatrously adore; For, if to erect Crucifixes, and other Popish Images for holy use, be (contrary to the Commandment) a keeping of an honourable memory of the Idol, how can the religious use of the Cross in Baptism, being as well an Idol, as any of their Images, be retained without breach of the Law: Babes keep yourselves from Jdols? Answer. It is true, that our Cross & theirs is the same in name, but neither in form, nor religious use altogether. I say altogether, because in some religious use, ours and theirs is the same: namely in this, that both they, and we use it for an outward Ceremony, to testify that the child shall not be ashamed, to confess the faith of Christ crucified: their superstitious use we admit not, and their Idolatrous use (which I wonder how you do distinguish from their superstitious use) you free us from. But you say, we ought to abstain, not only from the Idolatry, or worship, but even from all religious use, of such human ordinances, as others do Idolatrously adore. From the Idolatry I confess, but not from that religious use which is good, and tendeth to a good end. That it is a human ordinance, hindereth not, because being withal an Ecclesiastical Constitution, it is thereby made in part divine. That they use it some way superstitiously, is no reason, why we should not concur with them in that wherein they use it well. For, Aug. de doct. christ. li. 2. c. 18. Quisquis bonus, verusque Christianus est, Domini sui esse intelligit, ubicunque invenerit, veritatem. The erecting of Crucifixes, and other Popish Images, for holy use, is indeed a keeping of an honourable memory of the Jdol, & yet the well using of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, in our Church, is not so. For neither doth our Church propose it as an Idol, but as a Ceremony of decency, 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 memorative sign, to put us in mind of our Christian duty: which may make us rather detest, then religiously remember the abuses of Popery. And therefore neither is it aswell an Idol, as any of their Images, which you will not prove in haste: nor a breach of the Apostles exhortation, Babes keep yourselves from Idols. Now we come to the third general part of this Treatise, wherein the Treatiser endeavoureth to answer certain objections of ours, in defence of the Cross: Our first objection he setteth down in these words. The first objection. 8. Sect. The sign of the Cross in the first institution was free from superstition and Idolatry: and if the abuse which grew after be removed, why should it not recover his ancient use, and indifferency, like as the bread in the Lord's supper, which the Papists do religiously adore? The Treatisers answer to the objection. There is great difference etc. I expected the Treatiser in his answer to our objections, framed by himself, would have made every thing plain and evident: so as a man at the first sight, might perceive the answer fitted and applied to the objection in every point: But some thing there was: either haste, or Ignorance, not knowing how to answer, or Conscientia fraudis, or I know not what, that would not suffer him to speak directly, nor to exemplify his allegations, but make him wind himself every way, and so to double, & huddle things together, that myself I confess, and I believe few men else, can find in him, Quid cui respo deatur, what is answered unto which; as to any man that diligently marketh, what he saith to the first objection, may plainly appear. By which means, though he hath put me to a double labour, yet I will endeavour in my Reply, both to fit his answers to the objection, and make them stronger; so, that the indifferent Reader shall perceive, that no wrong is offered him; and yet with all I will so discover his shifts, & windings, as all men I hope that come not with that obstinate resolution of, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, shall rest fully satisfied, & contented. Now therefore to his answer. His answer consisteth of three parts. The first whereof is of those differences, which are between that, which God hath created, and commanded, and that which man hath ordained: whereby he would imply, as I take it, that the reason is not like, why the Cross recovered out of the abuse should return to his ancient integrity; & why the bread in the Lord's supper, reclaimed from Popish adoration should be again restored to his right use. The second part of his answer, is of a double use of the Cross: Civil and Religious, whereby he would imply, as I think, that the civil use may be restored to his ancient indifferency, but the religious use cannot. The third part of his answer, is concerning our abusing of the sign of the Cross, in the Church of England, who, he saith, retain it among us with opinion very superstitious, and erroneous; and use it otherwise, than the ancient fathers did: Each of these I will consider by itself, in their several order: The first therefore he delivereth in these words. Treatisers answer to the 1. Object. There is great difference between 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 unlawful: and therefore Hezechia did worthily break the brazen Serpent, not seeking to redress the abuse of it: Now howsoever Bellarmine would insinuate, that the Cross is founded on Scripture, yet the weakness of his arguments, do bewray the unsoundnes of the matter; & therefore Tertullians' judgement, 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. Reply to the Treatisers answer. Here I observe, first your assertion, That there is great difference, between that which God hath created, & commanded, and that which man hath ordained. Secondly, your proof of this difference, by these particulars. 1 That which God hath commanded is necessary, as the bread in the supper of this nature are Churches, Pulpits, etc. things of necessary use, and warranted by God himself. That which man hath ordained is indifferent, as the Cross in Baptism. 2 No abuse can alter the nature of that, which God hath commanded, and is necessary: as the bread in the supper, Churches, Pulpits, etc. That which man hath ordained, and is indifferent, may by abuse become unlawful; as the retaining the brazen Serpent, which was no where commanded. 3 That which God hath commanded, is warranted by the scriptures. That which man hath ordained, is not warranted in the scripture. For howsoever Bellarmine would insinuate, etc. yet you prefer Tertullians' judgement, who saith, Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, etc. If this be not your meaning, in the first part of your answer, I confess, I cannot attain unto it: your words are so intricate, & doubtfully set down; which hath caused me to use the help of your margin, for the better understanding of your text. For reply therefore unto this your assertion, we willingly acknowledge, that there is indeed great difference, between that which God hath created, & commanded: and that which man, as man, hath ordained: for the first proceedeth from the clear fountain of all goodness, wisdom, and truth: the latter from the corrupt fountain of man's heart; wherein naturally is nothing, but wickedness ignorance, and falsehood: But if you make your comparison, between that which God hath commanded, & that which the Church of God hath ordained, (as in reason you ought to do) the difference is not so great, as you would have it; Let God's commandment have worthily the first place, and pre-eminence in all things, as is meet; but let the ordinances of the Church, be immediately subordinate unto God's commandment, 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 precious promises of God, is made partaker of the divine nature: which no doubt doth assist them, even in the laws also, and constitutions, which are made for Order & Decency in the Church. Concerning your first proof, & point of difference, when you say, That which God hath commanded is necessary, that which man ordained is indifferent; I grant, that which God hath commanded is indeed necessary, for the matter, Beza ep. 2. circa med. and necessary for the form: (wherein yet look upon the second Epistle of Mr. Beza. How far it is necessary to be done as he hath commanded:) necessary to be reclaimed from all abuses, that it hath been subject unto: and necessary to be restored to his first and true use. But before we grant you your second proposition. That which man hath ordained is indifferent: we must be instructed, what you mean by this word indifferent: for if you understand, the things themselves, as they are of themselves, we grant that the Church cannot make a thing indifferent, to be of itself, other than a thing indifferent: but if you understand the same things, as they are for use, lawfully commanded, or forbidden, by the authority of the Church, than we must tell you, that it is not freely in your own power, and liberty, whether you will use them, or not use them accordingly: for than they cease to be altogether indifferent, & begin to become some way necessary: which that you may the rather believe, I will direct you to Mr. Bezaes' 24. Epistle, where you may learn 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 neque contra justum praeceptum omitti possunt, si praecipiantur, neque contra interdictum fieri, si prohibeantur. Things otherwise of themselves indifferent, change their nature after a sort, when they are either comamnded, or forbidden, by any lawful authority: because they can neither be omitted, contrary to the just precept, if they be commanded; nor done contrary to the prohibition, if they be forbidden. And a little after. Jbid. m▪ 9 Nam et si conscientias propríe solus Deus ligat: tamen quatenus Ecclesia, ordinis & decori, adeóque aedificationis rationem habens, leges aliquas de rebus medijs ritè conduit, eiusmodi leges pijs omnibus sunt obseruandae, & ●atenus conscientias ligant, ut 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 far forth as the Church, having regard of order, decency, and edification, maketh rightly any laws, concerning things indifferent: those laws are to be observed, by all godly men, and so far bind the consciences, that no man wittingly, and willingly, with a purpose of rebelling, may without sin, either do those things which are so forbidden, or omit those things, which are so commanded. I pray you Mr Treatiser, mark diligently the words, conscientias ligant, or, nemo sciens & prudens rebellandi animo, possit absque peccato: for you know how many of your brethren, are forgetful of this instruction: without sin, say you, what sin I pray you? Hemmingius in Syurag cap. de adiaphonun. 9 I refer you for answer to an other. Qui violate Ecclesiasticam politiam peccat multis modis: primum enim reus fit violati ordinis in Ecclesia: deinde authoritatem Magistratus contemnit: tum infirmorum conscientias vulnerat: postremò nocet exemplo: & charitatem erga fratres violate. He that breaks the Ecclesiastical Policy, sinneth many ways: first he is guilty of breaking the orders of the Church: secondly he contemneth the authority of the Magistrates: thirdly, he woundeth the consciences of the weak: and lastly he hurteth by example, & violateth the law of Charity. Again whereas speaking of things necessary, in your margin you give us to understand, that of this nature are Churches, Pulpits, etc. I demand, of what nature? mean 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 urged in the objection. If this be your meaning, you are very much mistaken: for though Churches and Pulpits, are very necessary in deed, in their kind: 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 necessary 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 persecution, Just. Mart. Apol. 2. non lodge à fine. were grateful unto God, though not done in Churches, and those verba praepositi exhortatoria, ad imitationem tam honestarum rerum, words of the Provost, wherewith he exhorted to the imitation of so honest things, which justine Martyr mentioneth, may be esteemed good sermons, though not delivered 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 years come to pass, that many of your brotherhood, in the freedom of Christian religion, have made choice of private houses for their sermons, rather than of Churches? & of the end of a table in a Gentleman's parlour, rather than of a Pulpit? These your practices have made proof unto the world, that Churches, and Pulpits, howsoever necessary, are not yet so necessary, even in your own opinion, as the bread in the supper: nor so greatly respected by you, as here you would make us now believe. Your second point of difference, between things commanded by God, and ordained by man is, No abuse can alter the nature of that, which God hath commanded, but that which man hath ordained, may by abuse become unlawful: as the retaining the brazen Serpent, which you note in the margin, was no where commanded, and therefore Hezechia did worthily break it, not seeking to redress the abuse of it. In the first of these propositions. No abuse can alter the nature of that, which God hath commanded. I confess I do rather guess, than well understand what you mean by altering of the nature: I suppose your meaning to be this, viz. that no abuse fastened by Papists, upon the bread in the supper, can so alter the right use thereof, but that by the Orthodox and right believers, it may again be reduced to his first integrity: we concur with you in this opinion, & think the very same in the sign of the Cross: No, say you, not so, because that which man hath ordained may by abuse become unlawful: this we confess also, but add, that by right use, it may again also become lawful: for what should hinder it? Because, say you, it is ordained by man▪ so than the point of difference consisteth in the diversity of the Authors: the bread abused may again be rightly used, because God is the author of that institution: the Cross in Baptism once abused, can never again be rightly used, because man is the ordainer thereof: God and man do differ, tanquam creator & creatura: between whom Christ being both God and man, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, medius: between God I say, on the one side, & all mankind on the other: but to bring them yet a great deal nearer: God & faithful man, regenerated by the spirit of God (of which sort is the Church and every true member thereof) do differ, tanquam pater & filius, as the father & the son, jer. 3.1. I will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, between whom Christ in both natures, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. Cor. 6.18. Eph. 3.22. a mediator, or reconciler, to take away that difference, which was between them, and us, that we might be the habitation of God by the spirit: So that these, as you see, differ only as relatives, whose difference is, their natural reciprocation, and whose diversity is their conjunction: the on not crossing, but referring itself unto the other: Only God and unregenerate men, differ, tanquam hosts, like opposites, Rom. 8.7. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that swayeth in them, is enmity with God, as the Apostle teacheth: so that, except you will say, that unregenerate and wicked man, is the ordainer of the Cross, as you do falsely, when you say it is, the invention of Antichrist, the man of sin (for by your own confession, it is more ancient than he) you see there is no such great difference between the bread in the supper, and the Cross in Baptism, ex part 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 faithful, the obedient Children & sons of God: as partly before hath been declared. I supposed rather, that you would have made the difference to consist, in the diversity of the pollutions, which each of them in the time of their abuse had contracted. The bread, a pollution indeed, but easily separable, & removable from it again: The Cross such a pollution, or filth, as afterwards you please to call it, as no water can cleanse it, nor any pretext purify it, for the holy service of jehova. But because you use these flourishes, in the next section, I will spare to speak of it, tell I meet you there. Thirdly you press us with the example of Hezekiah. The brazen serpent, say you, though commanded by God himself, yet retained without his express commandment, became an Idol, and was therefore worthily broken of Hezekiah, not seeking to reform the abuse, Therefore much more the Cross in Baptism, which was ordained by man only, being abused in as high a degree of Idolatry as the brazen Serpent was, is utterly to be destroyed, without any farther redress. This is the, nodus Gordius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and height of all your objections, your fortress, and bulwark, your Herculeum & Achilleum argumentum, wherein you repose all your strength and greatest confidence: and therefore I will endeavour, so to fit mine answer, to every point thereof, as I trust the indifferent reader, shall easily perceive your weakness, even in the midst of all your strength: Therefore concerning your comparison, between the reformation of Ezechiah, and our Governors, I answer, first in this example, we must put a difference, between those things that are common therein and left for example of imitation 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 King & chief Magistrate, on whom it lieth to reform abuses, and without whose authority, no private man is to assume that office, unto himself: Aug epi 50. ad Bonif. comitem. Rex domino aliter seruit quia homo est, aliter quia etiam et Rex est: quia homo est, et seruit vivendo fideliter quia etiam Rex, ei seruit, cum ea facit adseruiendum illi, quae non potest facere, nisi Rex. which I note the rather to put our Treatiser, and his adherents, in mind of their too much forwardness, to begin reformation, being but private persons, and to put it in practice, without commission. Bucer. in script. Angl pag. 154. Nemo hanc autoritatem publicam, Wolphius in hunc locum. & consensum Ecclesiae, Privatis hominibus, ut hoc agant, pius et sapiens autor est nemo. Those private men, that are thus busy, had neither piety nor wisdom, to give them counsel for so doing. Secondly His zeal in God's cause, which was most fervent, & such it ought to be, in all good Governors, and reformers. Thirdly his reformation in repressing Idolatry, & taking away the occasion thereof. Fourthly that together with his reformation, he joined instruction, & teaching of the people: for when he saw them to repose a power of healing, in the brazen Serpent, he called it Nehustan, & showing them the matter, taught them that it had no such power in it; and was nothing but a lump of brass: all these things, I doubt not, but that our reformers proposed unto themselves, for an example of reformation. The things proper to this action, and having peculiar reference, after a sort, to the person of Hezekiah were first his manner of reformation, by breaking the brazen Serpent in pieces, & utterly annihilating of it: Secondly the particular motives that might induce him, to this reformation, namely one inward, being extraordinarily moved thereunto by the spirit of God, which doth appear in this, that he did otherwise reform it, than his religious predecessors before him had done. Another outward being occasioned so to do because Achaz his father, had either himself brought this superstition into his kingdom, or else being brought in formerly, by his Predecessors, had by his example, and authority given great furtherance, and encouragement thereunto; and therefore, utterly to take away that stain wherewith Achaz had stained the house and stock of David, Hezekiah, no doubt, was the rather induced to this destroying kind, and manner of reformation. Now if our Predecessors, and Reformers followed him not, in this manner of reforming, by utter subversion, they had great reason so to do, being men, whom neither the abuses might so particularly concern, as this did Hezekiah, and knowing moreover, that, Ad eundem finem multis medijs pervenitur. Reformation of abuses, & taking away of Jdolatry is the end, and this end may be attained by more ways than on, as either, by Instructing the people, and teaching them the right use: or by Laws prohibiting the Jdolatry: or by punishments, either penal, or capital, upon the transgressors of the laws established: or by removing the thing (if it be a material thing, as this was) out of the places of resort, into some secluse place, where the people might neither come at it, nor see it, and where without offence it might still be kept, for a monument of God's mercy: or lastly, if nothing else will serve, by utter abolishing, and destroying the thing. Now because, of all these ways, he made choice of that, which he judged, and which was indeed, the most expedite, and ready way, and withal the surest, that Idolatry might never be committed to it again; Aug. de civet. Dei lib. 10. c. 8. (Religiosâ potestate Deo serviens, cum magna pietatis laud contrivit) doing God service, with his religious authority, he broke it, and is worthily commended for his piety. If it had seemed good in his judgement, to have taken some of the other courses, as it is likely, David & Asa, & jehosophat, and other good kings of juda before him did, his commendations, as theirs, had been no whit less, though his reformation had neither been so expedite, nor so sure for time to come: for which cause also, that great & famous execution, which K. Henry the eight did upon the Monasteries of this Land, is likewise commended: yet many both zealous, and religious professors, could rather have wished, that so many famous Monuments, erected sometime to the service of God, but then abused by the wicked and sinful inhabitants, might still have retained the end and punishment have lighted only on the offenders. Yea but you will say, where the abuses could not otherwise be redressed; but had it remained still unbroken, it would still have been a stumbling block, and occasion of Idolatry, there the readiest, and surest way was to be taken: I grant where the abuse could not otherwise be redressed as in the brazen Serpent, etc. but where the abuse may otherwise be redressed, as in the sign of the Cross, there destruction, & utter subversion, is not always the best cure. And herein plainly is the difference, between the brazen Serpent, and the Cross. Hezechiah saw the abuse of the Serpent; 2 King 18.4. otherwise incurable, for unto those days (saith the scripture) the children of Jsrael, did burn incense unto it▪ unto those days, importeth a long time before, and an inevitable abuse, that had long continued; wherein (as we are in all good reason to conceive) the former godly kings, David, Asa, and jehosophat, who are greatly commended, for their reformations, had no doubt made trial of all other means, and yet experience made proof, that by all those it could not be redressed. In which case Hezechiah's 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, ut si no anulli ex praedecessoribus & maioribus nostris, fecerunt aliqua quae illo tempore potuerunt esse sine culpa, & posteà vertuntur in errorem & 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, have done somethings, which at that time, might be without fault, and afterwards are turned into error, and superstition, they may be destroyed by posterity, without all lingering, and with great authority. Our Church contrariwise perceiveth, by the fruitful experience, now of almost fifty years, that the abuse, of the consignation of the Cross in Baptism, is curable, where obedient, and conformable Teachers, instruct the people a right & it seemeth further, that this abuse, would have been much more redressed before these days, had not the Treatiser, and his complices hindered the work, by their untrue slanders, and accusations, both of our Church, as retaining the relics of Popery, and of the thing, as if it were the mark of the beast, & framed in the forge of Antichrist; which they know to have been, a decent Ceremony used in the purest age, and by the greatest pillars of the Church, long before any show of Antichrist did appear. Again I answer, that it is by the Magistrates to be considered. First, wherein 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 skilful Physician, cures are applied to those parts, that are most affected, so by the discreet Magistrate, the redress should be made there, where the abuse principally consisteth. If in the persons the easiness, or difficulty, of reforming them, is diligently to be respected. If in the thing that is abused, the Magistrate is likewise to consider, of what nature the thing is. If evil of his own nature, and first institution, as Lupanaria, the Stews and such like places be, then without all question, their best redress is, their utter subversion, and destruction. If good of his own nature, & first institution, but abused by men, as both the brazen Serpent, & the sign of the Cross were: Then the consideration is, whether the thing thus abused, be such, as may well be spared or such as cannot well be spared. If so, than it is apparently, the readier, and easier way, to take away the thing. If otherwise, than the wisdom of the Magistrate, will direct him, rather to take away the abuse, then destroy the thing. These considerations in the matter of the brazen Serpent, made good king Hezechiah to find, that the brazen Serpent was for one peculiar time & occasion, that it had long before his days 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 books of Moses, that would serve that turn, though this were taken away. Lastly, that it was all one, these things considered, whether it were preserved still, or utterly abolished: upon which grounds, he proceeded, to that, so much commended execution, broke it in pieces, and called it, Nehushtan. The same deliberations likewise, in our reformers, in the matter of the Cross, made them to find, that the consignation of the Cross in Baptism, was not more peculiar to the times of the Primitive 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 idolaters. That if it were taken away, the Church of Rome, might justly accuse us, of abrogating an harmless, & innocent institution, Non temere, nec subinde, nec levibus de causis ad novationem est decurren dum Calv. Inst. lib 4 cap. 10. of the Primitive Church. That it is not indifferent to our Church, whether it be taken away, or not: both because we are not to reject ancient institutions, where there is no need, and also to make known to the Romanists, that we willingly reject nothing, that possibly may be reduced, to his first integrity. Upon these grounds and deliberations, our good Magistrates in K. Edward's days, did not abolish the use of the Cross in Baptism. And upon the same grounds our worthy Prince, & Magistrates that now are, think it meet, to retain it still. Quid hic peccatum est? what offence I pray you is this? or why should not you be as favourable 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 usum retinuisse; utantur igitur ipsi, sicut par est, sua libertate. I answer thirdly that our Reformers did the same thing, in their reformation, of the Cross in Baptism, which Ezekiah did in his reformation of the Brazen Serpent: for what was that which Hezekiah did? surely it was, that he took away the abuse, wherein it was faulty, not the right use, wherein it was typical, and figurative. The abuse wherein it was faulty, was the burning of Incense unto it, and worshipping of it, & the occasion of this abuse was that opinion, and estimation of Deity, which the people had falsely affixed unto it: both these he took away; namely the abuse, and the occasion. Our reformers have done the very same; They have taken away, first, the abuse of the sign of the Cross in Baptism; which was, the too great estimation, and opinion, of grace, power and virtue, that the people erroneously reposed in it: and secondly, the occasion of that abuse; which was the ignorance, and misunderstanding of the people, for want of instruction. Only the difference is: that the abuse which was the least, in the Idolatrous jews; namely their false opinion of Deity in the Serpent, was the greatest in our men, as touching the Cross: and that which was the greatest in them; namely their worshipping, and burning incense, unto the Serpent, was none at all in ours, in the sign of the Cross. For our men, going as far as they, in ascribing virtue, which was an equal fault in both, could not go so far in worshipping, & adoring, because of the diversitiy of the natures, of the several things. The brazen Serpent, being a substance material, and permanent, and therefore easily subject to adoration, by reason of the outward shape, and form: The sign of the Cross an action immaterial, and transient, & therefore nothing so easily, to be worshipped, by reason it wanted both substance, shape, and form. Secondly Hezekiah, neither took away, nor purposed to take away, the right use of the serpent, wherein it was not faulty; namely, that it was a type, of Christ's exaltation, on the Cross, and therein a representation, of the Messiah: This use remained still, after the reformation of Hezekiah: Neither did our Governors, take away that use, of the sign of the Cross, wherein it was not faulty: Neither did they suppose it meet, to take it away: but restoring it to that use, for which it was instituted at the first, left it still to be a memorative sign, of our promise made to Christ in Baptism, and a secret, and faithful admonisher of our duties. So that we may safely say, our Reformers followed the reformation of Hezekiah, most exactly in all points, wherein the divers natures of the abuses, & the things, did not make a necessary difference of their reformation. Concerning your comparing of the authors: The brazen Serpent commanded by God, and the Cross in Baptism ordained by man, though I have answered thereto before, this now I add moreover, by way of retortion: Though both did give occasion to Idolatry, yet the brazen Serpent, even therefore, because it was ordained by God, might minister a more probable, present, and obvious fall into Idolatry, than the Cross in Baptism, in that it was ordained by man: This I declare thus. When men's minds are once infected with superstition, they take hold soon of that, which is most commended by the author: & the more worthy the author is, the more firmly they cleave to that, which they have once fastened their error upon, if therefore they find God to be the author of it, they take that for reason sufficient, why they should worship it. This cause made the Idolatrous jews, not only to worship the brazen Serpent at the first; but also to think, that in so doing they did well; because they worshipped only that, whereof they knew certainly, God himself to be the author. The same reason moved those idolaters, reproved by the Prophet, jerem. 13: 19 jerem. 8.2. to burn incense to the Sun, and Moon, and all the host of heaven, and to worship them, thinking their Idolatry the more justifiable, because it took occasion, not upon any invention of man, but upon those excellent creatures of God, whom he hath placed so high, and adorned with so great beauty: Contrariwise, the devices and inventions of men, such as the Cross is, are always doubtful, and suspected, even unto the idolaters themselves; and have not their occasion, so present, & immediate, as the other: For first, the Author must have some reason for his devise, and then authority, to give countenance thereunto: and lastly, the opinion of the people, approving the reason, & embracing the authority, which points being well considered, as they make a farther way about, to bring the credit of adoration, to that which is invented by man: so they are good means, to persuade the people to forsake their Idolatry: when they have embraced it: So that your argument, from the diversity of the Authors, doth rather make against you, then give any strength to your cause. The like may be said of the opinion of virtue, which the Jdolator is always willing, to ascribe unto his Idol. For when it doth manifestly appear, that that, which he maketh an Idol, is commanded of God, the Jllation is far more present and easy Ergo, it cannot be without virtue: then can be applied to any ordinance devised by man. Concerning your comparing of the brazen Serpent, and the Cross together, we must confess, the idolatry is like, and worthy to be punished with like extirpation, so long as you compare, the material brazen Serpent, with the material Cross, of wood, stone, brass, or any outward sensible substance. For these having once gotten the opinion of Deity, to reside in them, expose themselves to be adored by the vulgar sort, no less, and in no inferior degree, than the Serpent did. But when you extend your comparison, to match the immaterial consignation of the Cross in Baptism, with the material brazen Serpent, your comparison holdeth not correspondency, as in the former. For there is great difference, between this consignation, and those other Crosses: so that, wherein this is different, from them, therein also it must needs be different from the brazen Serpent. From those other Crosses, and so consequently, from the brazen Serpent, this consignation of the Cross in Baptism, doth differ, First in matter: they material, and sensible, this immaterial & insensible. Secondly, in the end, they made perhaps, and framed of purpose to be receptacles of divine worship, this only to serve for a sign of remembrance, being therefore justly to be reckoned among those things, Quae pertinent 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 own to God, by a manifest and special signification, whereby 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 conceit of virtue, and power, falsely ascribed unto it. And four in redress, they no ways curable, but by demolition, this curable by informing the understanding aright, & teaching the ignorant, that we repose no power and virtue in it, nor yield any divine worship unto it, but use it only as an admonisher, & remembrancer of our Christian duties: and therefore you must not argue, that because those material Crosses were as offensive as the brazen Serpent, therefore this immaterial consignation must needs be so. You shall do better to distinguish them in name, calling them, as they are indeed, Crosses, and this the consignation of the Cross: then to confound them in nature, or suffer yourself to be deceived by the name, as if what things soever agree in name, must of necessity agree in superstition, and Idolatry. Lastly concerning your marginal note, that God no where commanded the retaining of the brazen Serpent; we answer, neither doth he any where forbidden it: & I make no doubt, but had it not been abused to superstition, it might without offence to God, have been retained, though he gave no express commandment so to do. And he that considers, what great prerogatives the brazen Serpent had, will (I suppose) be of the same opinion. For it was erected, not by man's, but by God's direct commandment. It was adorned and commended, with a most famous and memorable miracle: It was a monument of a very strange and extraordinary cure: It had continued a long time, & might almost allege Prescription, why it should be retained still: It was a type and figure of Christ's exaltation on the Cross, as himself expoundeth it: As Moses lift up the brazen Serpent in the wilderness: joh. 3.14. so must the son of man be lifted up, etc. But what would you infer upon the not retaining of the brazen Serpent? That we should not retain the use of the Cross in Baptism? But this our Church hath enjoined, and commanded, whose commandment, we are bound in conscience to obey, so long as it commandeth nothing contrary to the word, & will of God. For howsoever you & your consorts reject obedience, yet we take it not our duties so to do. Laws made by the Church, of things indifferent (as Mr. Beza told you a little before) do so far bind 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 heed Mr. Treatiser this clause conclude 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, etc. It is the duty of Christian people to observe and keep those laws that shall be made, according to this rule, (meaning where charity is the Moderatrix as he said before) with a free conscience indeed, and no superstition, but with a godly and ready propension to obedience. Neither must they have them in contempt, not by careless negligence omit them: much less through pride and stubbornness openly violate and resist them. Where, by the way, let it trouble no man, that Mr. Beza saith conscientias ligant, Mr. Calvin saith, libera quidem conscientia. For Mr. Beza in his binding of the conscience, hath respect unto the obedience that is due unto the authority, Mr Caluin in his freedom of the Conscience, hath reference to that estimation we should have of the things, not to think 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 servare & omittere etiam extra scandalum licet, tamen si ex proternia aut petulantia quis ordinem, publica autoritate constitutum contemnat & turbet, non leviter peccat. These Ceremonies though it be lawful to observe or omit, where no scandal is offered, yet if any man upon frowardness or wantonness, shall contemn, or disquiet the order, that is established by public authority, he sinneth grievously. And let this suffice for answer to your example of the brazen Serpent, and second point of difference. Your third point of difference I take to be, The bread in the supper, is warranted in the scripture. The Cross in Baptism hath no warrant in the word, For howsoever Bellarmine would insinuate, etc. The former of these, That the bread in the supper is warranted in the Scripture, we know right well: to the latter that the sign of the Cross is not warranted we answer first, that it is no where in the Scripture forbidden. Secondly, Non requiritur necessariò, Pet. Mart. in Ep 4. ad Hopperum. ut in sacris litteris expressam mentionem exhibeamus, singularum rerunquas usurpamus. Thirdly, that though in express words it be not warranted, yet virtually, fundamentally, and in suo principio, it is even in the Scriptures comprehended. The principle, and foundation that I mean, is, that general precept of the Apostle concerning things indifferent. Let all things be done decently and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. in the generality whereof this particular is contained, as by the deduction before mentioned in the answer, to the Minor of your main Syllogism, may plainly appear; last concerning Beauties insinuation, that the Cross is grounded &c: we stand not upon it, nor build our opinion upon any proof of his. Yet, as it is certain that the material Cross, joh. 3.14. whereupon Christ suffered, was shadowed by the pole, whereupon the brazen Serpent was lifted up (for so our Saviour himself 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 even this our immaterial consignation, did take his first beginning and occasion in the primitive Church, upon the signing of the Israelites door posts, Exod. 12.7. with the blood of the Paschal Lamb: or by the signing of them that mourn in their foreheads with the mark of the letter T. or by jacobs' blessing of Ephraim and Manasses with his hands a cross, Ezech. 9.4. Gen. 48.14. whereby as Musculus observeth, Wolf. Muscul in Gen. cap. 48. Adumbrabatur mysterium Crucis, in quo est omnis verae benedictionis fons & origo. But all this we yield unto you, and embrace with you Tertullians' judgement, that this is established by no other warrant, then by the authority of the Church, the weight whereof you have sufficiently hard of before. But now let us hear the second part of your answer, to our first objection. Treatise. 9 Sect. Now it is farther to be noted, that a double use of the Cross is mentioned in antiquity: one civil, & the other religious, against the former we do not dispute, yielding all reverence to those Christians, which by that note showed their rejoicing and glory in that, which the heathen counted their shame. But now, that abuse hath turned the Image and sign of the Cross, into an Idol, it seemeth thereby to be made execrable. For Gideons' Ephod being first a civil monument of victory, when the people went a whoring after it, was it lawful for the Magistrate, to erect in the Tabernacle or Synagogue, though not the same yet the like, both in name & form to any religious use? Would it have sufficed to have said, this is not the same Ephod, that Israel maketh an Idol of, neither is it set here to be worshipped (for your brethren do grievously sin therein) but only to keep in mind the great victory that God by Gedeon gave to Israel? Right so the Cross used by the ancients to show that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, being merely civil, and yet expressing a most Christian resolution, having been abused, yea continuing to be worshipped, both in Imagine & in Signo, It seemeth that this filth hath made it unfit, on any pretence of restoring it to his ancient use, to be annexed to the holy things of the Sanctuary. Especially while there are so many Papists, that superstitiously abuse it among us. Now for the religious use of the Cross, by the ancients, it was never free from sin and superstition, as afterwards is showed, and if it were, yet it being an human ordinance and now not only abused to Idolatry, but becoming itself a most abominable Idol, no water can cleanse it, nor any pretext purify it, for the holy service of jehovah Reply to the second part of the Treatisers answer. The Treatisers main forces are spent already, in the first part of his answer, All these things that follow are nothing else but, levis armaturae milites, his light horsemen and flourishes, to make the number of his arguments seem the greater. In this Section he telleth us of a twofold use of the Cross mentioned in antiquity, one Civil, the other Religious. This we acknowledge to be true. The use was held of them, as a Trophy, & public Monument, of that great victory which God gave to Constantine against Maxentius. For which cause Constantine, at the first made the sign of the Cross in his imperial banner, stamped it upon his Coins, graved it in his statues, & Images, and in the armour of his Soldiers: And the like hath been used by all Christian Princes ever since. Secondly, as an ornament in story, or outward beautifiing of any thing: Thirdly, as an outward mark of distinction from the heathen Jdolaters, whereby in their common meetings, and intercourse of life, they made it known, as well to the Jnfidels, as to one another, that they were Christians, & no ways ashamed of the Cross of Christ. The religious use they made of the Cross, consisted more privately, in a mutual reference towards themselves, and was frequented, First in their actions of common life, still to excite their devotion, to admonish them of their duties, and put them in mind of Christ crucified. Muniantur aures, Cyp. ep. ad Thi●ar. cap. 8. ne audiant edicta feralia. Muniantur oculi ne videant detestanda simulacra. Muniatur frons, ut signum Dei incolume servetur. Muniaturos, ut dominum suum lingua victrix tucatur: as Cyprian speaketh. ad omnem progressum atque promotum, Tertull de coron mil. cap. 3. etc. as Tertullian declareth, They used to mark their foreheads with the sign of the Cross, at every moving, and stirring of their bodies, as they went out, as they came home, as they put on their clothes, pulled on their shoes, and as they washed; at table, and at candle-lighting, going to bed, and sitting down, & generally in every particular action of their life. Secondly, they used the sign of the Cross, in the Sacrament of Baptism, as we do now, for a present admonition, and memorative token, continually to put us in mind of our duty & profession, which in that Sacrament we undertake. I have therefore the more particularly mentioned these differences, that I may the better express this point to the understanding of the Reader. Concerning therefore the civil use of the Cross, among the Ancients, the Treatiser delivereth us these oracles. 1 That he will not dispute against the civil use, & yet he tells us, that now by abuse, it is turned to an Idol. 2 He yields all reverence to those Christians, which by that note showed their rejoicing, and glory, in that which the Heathen counted their shame: Yet withal he saith, It is made execrable. 3 He saith, the Ancients, to show that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, expressed thereby a most Christian resolution: But withal he addeth, By the filth which it hath since contracted, it is made unfit on any pretence to be restored to his ancient use, & to be annexed to the holy things of the Sanctuary. Touching these his speeches, as we willingly embrace that, wherein he commendeth the Ancients, (which is a thing very rare among that generation) so we would also free ourselves, that tread only in their steps, and use it no worse than they did, from those imputations of making it an Idol, execrable, and a filth, which the Treatiser doth lay upon us, if not as Authors, yet at the least as Abettors. And therefore leaving their religious use, to his place, because the Treatiser speaketh these things only of the Civil use: I would feign learn, which of those Civil uses mentioned before, we have thus grievously abused. If he say the first use in Banners, Coins, Statues, Sect. 2. Armour & such like, or the second, in matter of History, or outward ornament, or beautifiing of any thing, himself is far more faulty, than any of us. For of the former he hath yielded before, that in Prince's Banners, Coronations, Coin, Crowns, or in any other Civil respect, it may have a lawful use: yea, though it be apparently an Idol. And touching the latter he maketh no question, but that it may be made and retained, though it be of an Image, even such an Image as is Idolatrously worshipped. Neither can I possibly see, how we have made an Idol, execration and filth of their third civil use, whereby they made it a note of distinction, from the Infidels. For that is the very point, for the which, in this place he so commendeth the Ancients, yielding all reverence to those Christians etc. & again, They have expressed a most Christian resolution: etc. So that except the Treatiser have some other Civil uses, of the Ancients in store, that we know not of, we cannot be persuaded, that we retain any Civil use of theirs as an Idol, execrable, and a filth, either in the Image, or in the sign. But yet he proveth it by the example of Gideons' Ephod. For Gideons' Ephod, saith he, being first etc. I take the force of his reason to be this. That good civil use of any thing that is abused, and continueth to be worshipped both in Imagine, & in signo: is made an Idol, execrable, and a filth. This he proveth by the example of Gideons' Ephod. But the good civil use of the Cross among the Ancients, is abused & continueth to be worshipped, both in Imagine et in signo. This he taketh to be proved by the practice of so many Papists, as do superstitiously abuse it among us. Ergo, The good civil use of the Cross among the Ancients is made an Idol, execrable, and a filth. The mayor I grant to be true, not simplicitèr, but secundum quid that is, only there, and among them only, that do abuse the good civil use, and continue worshipping of it, both in Imagine, and in signo. In them, and to them it is indeed an Idol, execrable, & a filth. But what is that to others, that neither abuse it nor worship it? Tit. 1.15. To the clean, saith the Apostle, all things are clean, but to them that are defiled, and unbelieving, nothing is clean, but even their minds, & consciences are defiled. Shall the sins of one man, think you, be laid upon another? Ezech. 18.20. God hath promised no. Anima quae peccaverit ipsa morietur, The soul that sinneth that shall die; The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. Your perpetual harping on one string, from secundum quid, to simpliciter, maketh that your music is nothing pleasant, as I have told you often before. Touching the proof of your Mayor, by the example of Gideons' Ephod, which you say, being first a civil monument of victory, etc. I answer, that it was not only a civil monument, and therefore your comparing of it with the civil uses of the sign of the Cross, among the Ancients, is unfit. And that it was not only a civil monument, besides St. Augustine's authority, Aug. quaest. in judic. 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 & beautiful upper garment, which the high Priest ware in the celebration of divine sacrifices? P. Mart. in hunc locum. Potuisset carmen ut Barac & Deborah conscribere, vel columnam erigere aut quippiam simile. If he intended a civil monument only, why made he choice of an Ephod? If besides the civil remembrance of his victory, he also intended the service of God (as St. Augustine judgeth) then 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 Pontificale & pretiolum confecit. Pet. Mart. Quo nomine omnia possunt intelligi, quae constituit Gedeon in sua civitate, velut ad colendum Deum, similia tabernaculo Dei, ea locutione quae significat à part totum, propter excellentiam vestis Sacerdotalis, By which name all things may be understood that Gedeon erected in his city, as to worship God, like the tabernacle of God, by that manner of speech called Synecdoche, which by a part doth signify the whole, for the excellency of the Priest's garment) but the scripture also seemeth to convince. judg. 8.27. For there it is said, That all 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 than was, not that he erected a civil monument only, August. as you say, but Quod extra Dei tabernaculum, fecit aliquid simile, ubi coleretur Deus. But because without the Tabernacle of God he made some like things, where God should be worshipped: which was plainly against the will of God, who had appointed his worship, to be frequented no where, but where the Ark of the Covenant was, which at that time was in Silo. 2. I say that there is no just comparison between Gedeons' Ephod, and the sign of the Cross in Baptism. For the end of Gedeons' Ephod was, either for God's service, (& then it was faulty, as is said before,) & so is not the Cross with us: or else (to make the best of it, and to grant you your own interpretation) it was, that the memory of God's benefit towards him in his victory, might not be abolished, and then the sign, which he used, was not fit, not agreeable to the matter. For, Pet. Mart. in hunc locum. Deus non mandaverat in lege, ut fieret Ephod in istum usum, sed tantum ut sacerdotes cum sacrificaturi essent, illud induerent: Signo igitur minus dextero & opportuno usus est. God did not command in the law, that an Ephod should be made to this use, but only that the Priests should wear it, when they were sacrificing; wherefore he used a sign not so commodious, nor so fit. But our sign of the Cross in Baptism, is most fit, and natural, and agreeable to the action, to signify the end, which we intend thereby, which is not so much to imprint a memory of God's benefit towards us, as to remember & admonish ourselves of that duty, which in Baptism we promised unto God. 3. To your question. Was it lawful for the Magistrate, etc. I may as well ask you. Was it not lawful for the Magistrate so to do? Or if that Ephod were unlawful, was no Ephod to be used in God's service afterwards? 4. As touching, that you say; The sign of the Cross in Baptism, among the Ancients was merely civil, I answer, that you have heard before, that it was some way religious, though they reposed no religion in it. For those uses that they made of it, To be a sign of their profession of Christian religion, To be a token that they were not ashamed of the Cross of Christ. To be a testimony even before Jdolaters; That they put their hope & confidence in Christ crucified: are rather to be counted religious, in my understanding, then only and merely civil, as you conceive of them. Your minor proposition offendeth in the same caption that your mayor doth. For say that the good civil use of the Cross is abused & worshipped by the Papists, what is that to us? Pet. Mart. ep. 4. ad Hopperum. Indifferentia non possunt illos, qui pura sinceraque agunt mente, & conscientia, contaminare, why I pray you may not we use that well, which they used ill? As well as an Orthodox writer may use the same Logic & Rhetoric, to prove the truth, which Heretics do to oppugn the truth? Aug count Crescon. Gramma. lib 1. cap. 1. Or an honest Soldier use those weapons in defence of his country, which Rebels and Traitors use for the destruction and desolation thereof, as was before alleged out of St. Augustine. Your proof holdeth well for the material sign, and for the superstitious conceit of the Cross in Baptism, but that they adored them as an Idol, remaineth yet to be proved. Concerning the religious use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, he saith two things. First that among the Ancients, it was never free from sin, and superstition: Secondly if it were, yet being a human ordinance, and abused, & made a most abominable Idol, no water can cleanse it etc. Touching the first, which of their religious uses do you mean? If that which they hold in their actions of common life; we neither commend it, nor condemn it; we condemn it not, because we suppose it may be well used, when it is done, only to excite, and put us in mind of Christ crucified, without any conceit of virtue or merit, or power therein reposed, as we verily think the Ancients used it; Hem. in cap. 5. ep. 1. Joan. Qui mane surgens & vesperi cubitam vadens, signat se cruse, in signum Christianae militiae, contra Satanam, non est culpandus, modo absit superstitio. We commend it not, because we know how apt the common people are, to be led away with that misconceipt, that so long hath cloven unto it: And yet we can no ways allow of yours, nor of your Patriarch T. C. judgement, Sect. 13. T. C. lib. 1. pag. 170. wherewith be censureth it. That the Lord hath left a mark of his curse upon it, whereby it might be perceived to come out of the forge of man's brain etc. This censure of his is too peremptory, & offendeth not only against the rule of Charity, that bids us think the best of them, whom we know not, especially of the Ancients; but of justice also: In that he layeth the fault, of superstitious succeeding ages, upon the religious and godly Fathers, that were before them. For why might not that be without abuse at the first, which we are certain, P. Martyr in cap. 7. Judic. Beza de notis Eccles. Cathol. was greatly abused afterwards, aswell as the sepulchres of Martyrs, & relics of Saints, and the Images of Christ, and his Apostles, all which had a good use at the first, and yet afterwards where occasions of heinous Idolatry and superstition. If you mean their religious use of the sign of the Cross in the Sacrament of Baptism, we utterly disclaim your sentence, and doubt not but that it was free from sin, and superstition, both in the Ancients, and in our Church. And to this your rash and inconsiderate condemning of the Ancient Fathers, and by them us, we oppose the more temperate and indifferent opinions, of your own friends; who by how much they were more learned than yourself, so much the more modest, and respective they were of Antiquity, then are you. And because you shall not think, that I will pervert or falsify their meanings by my interpretation, I will set down their speeches in their own words, as I find them in their writings. Mr Beza doth both grant, by way of Concession, Beza respon add Franc. Baldwin. that there might be a good use of it in the Primitive Church Fuerit sanè tempus, quo fuit aliquis istius signaculi, adversus Christi crucifixi contemptores usus: sit etiam diu et libentèr a Christianis usurpatus, pro externa verae religionis professione, Beza de Eccle. catho. notis. & also in express words affirm, Crucis consignationem, constat initio fuisse apertam Christianismi professionem. Hemingius delivering certain observations & conditions, how the sign of the Cross may in these days be well used in the Church, concludeth with this testimony of Antiquity. Heming. in ep. 1. Joan. cap. 5. His rationibus existimo usos esse signo crucis Augustinum, Epiphanium, Athanasium, qui multum signaculo crucis tribuerunt, propter significationem et admonitionem. Bucers' testimony to this purpose is most famous, that it was, Bucer in ordin. Eccles. cap. 12. usus in Ecclesia antiquissimi, admodum simplex, et praesentis admonitionis crucis Christi. Pezel. in Refut ●●●ech. jesuit. 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. count 7. ad cap. 29. Daneus yet goeth further, and saith Finis propter quem 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 gravissimas. Erat igitur huius signi inter Ethnicos usurpatio, confessio de Christo crucifixo pulcherrima. etc. 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, wherein it was justly commended by the fathers. His words are these. Crux non fuit à veteribus adorata, multò minus latriâ adorata: veneratio tantùm ei tributa fuit, id est usus cum reverentia, eamque usurparunt in testimonium fidei suae, simulque laudant quatenus fuit signum intrepidae fidei in Christum crucifixum ante ethnicos, etiam dum illi paenas minarentur. Zanchius speaking of the use of this sign in Constantine's time, freeth all the former ages from superstition, Zanch. de oper. Redem. l. 1. c. 15. Huc usque nihil superstitionis habebat signum illud. Lastly Goulartius speaketh more plainly in this point, Goulart. in Cyp. ad Demet. cap. 19 than any other, Quamuis veteres Christiani (saith he) externo signo crucis usi 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. add Thibaritanoes, ca 7. Christianicum Ethnicis Christum crucifixum deridentibus permixti, ut doctrinae salutaris, quae in Christum nos credere jubet, se minime pudere testaerentur, digitis in aere formabant figuram transuersam quasi crucis, quae Cerimonia tunc erat Christianismi, non superstitionis Magicae, (ut postea accidit,) symbolum. That it might once have had good use, and was a profession of Christianity, as Mr. Beza speaketh, Or that St. Augustine, and other Ancients used it with such due regard, as thereto belonged, as Hemingius thinketh, Or that it was a most ancient use in the Church, very simple, and of present admonition of the Cross of Christ, as Bucer testifieth: to my understanding doth plainly describe, a most Christian and religious use of it, among the Ancients, and utterly discover your slanderous accusation. But those other that tell you particularly, wherein it was well used, as Pezel. M. Perk. & by a proposition most manifestly contradictory unto yours, say, it had a most holy and godly end, as Daneus, and that it was without any superstition in the Ancients, as Goulartius, & Zanchius do, They I say plainly free it from sin and superstition, and with a contrary testimony in flat terms, convince the insolency, and audaciousness of your false asseveration. Touching the second. if it were: yet being an human ordinance etc. your two reasons, because it is an human ordinance abused, and because it is now also become an Idol, are answered before. And it hath oftentimes been said that those pollutions how abominable soever, do extend themselves no farther, then to the Persons that are polluted with them: Jndifferent things cannot defile them, that use them with a sincere mind, and pure conscience, how soever they be abused by others: And therefore you might well have spared your huge words, Execrable, abominable Idol, filth, no water can cleanse it, nor any pretext purify it, etc. except you had brought other arguments than these, the weakness where of doth most manifestly appear. All the bog words, that you can bring, will not make the uncleanness, you speak of, defi●e the Innocent, nor the pollution, and abomination of Popish Idolatry, cleave unto the true Protestant, that with a good conscience, useth the Ceremony, and with heart and soul, abhorreth the superstition. And thus much to the second part of your answer. Your third followeth now to be considered. Treatise. 10. Sect. But in very deed to speak as the truth is, the Cross is retained among us, Canon. 30. with opinion very superstitious, & erroneous. For in the late Canons it is said, that the Child is thereby dedicated unto the service of him that died on the Cross: what is this but to equal man's ordinance with Gods? And to ascribe that unto the Cross, which is due unto Baptism? A conceit fit for ignorant Papists, then learned Christians to assent unto. Neither do we use it as the Ancients did, for Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostome and others, as is apparent at those times did consecrate the elements therewith, and did not cross the child's forehead at all, but referred that unto the Bishop's confirmation; So that our crossing the Infant's forehead, & not the element of Baptism, is a mere novelty, without any warrant of that antiquity. Neither will that place of Tertullian de resurrectione carnis prove the contrary. The flesh is washed, that the soul may be purged, the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated, the flesh is signed that the soul may be guarded, the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be by the spirit enlightened, the flesh doth feed on the body & blood of Christ, that the soul may be filled and fatted of God. In which words, he joining together diverse Ceremonies of the Christians, doth indeed mention the signing of the faithful, but it may as well be referred to confirmation, expressed by imposition of hands, as to Baptism, understood by the washing of the body; & that on better reason for it is more than probable, that the sign of the Cross was not yet used in Baptism, seeing, Just. Martyr in defence. ad Antoninum & Tertull. de Baptismo, & de corona militis, do describe the form of Baptism, used in those times, and yet make no mention of the Cross therein: which in all likelihood they would not have omitted, if it had been used therein; Especially Tertullian, who in that very place speaketh of the Cross, as used out of Baptism in the ordinary blessing of themselves. Reply to the third part of the Treatisers answer to the first objection. This tenth Section containeth two grievous accusations, wherewith the Treatiser doth charge our Church, and the governors thereof. The first, That the sign of the Cross is retained among us, with opinion very superstitious and erroneous. The second, That we do not use it as the Ancients did: Grievous crimes no doubt, if they be justly laid upon us; But if unjustly, then mere reproaches, and slanders of the Treatiser. Touching the first. S. Hierome saith, In causa haereseos nemixem decetesse patientem. It becometh no ma to hold patience, when he is accused of heresy. The Treatiser belike, meant to try our patience, when he burdened us with opinion of the Cross both erroneous and superstitious. If he had accused us of error only, the matter had not been so very great. For, homines sumus, errare possumus: we are men and therefore subject unto error. And yet here also he might have remembered, that the company of those learned men that made the Canon, was as unlikely to err, as either the Treatiser or his adherents. But when unto his accusation of error, he addeth the most heinous crime of superstition, this is such an imputation, as whereof by all good means we are bound to clear ourselves. But he proveth it: for in the late Canons, it is said, that the child is thereby dedicated unto the service of him, that died on the Cross, what is this but to equal man's ordinance with Gods? And to ascribe that unto the Cross, which is due unto Baptism? A conceit fit for ignorant Papists then learned Christians to assent unto. If we assented either to the one or to the other, it were indeed not only a conceit fit for ignorant Papists, then learned Christians, but also an opinion erroneous and superstitious, and which is more, proud, insolent, and presumptuous too. But how doth the word dedicated, enforce thus much: namely, because the Sacrament, which is God's ordinance, can do no more but Dedicate the Infant, to the service of him that died on the Cross. And therefore when we say, the sign of the Cross, which is but man's invention, doth Dedicate, do we not equallmans ordinance with Gods? & ascribe that unto the Cross which is due unto the Sacrament? I answer, no: For first the Sacrament doth more than dedicate only, for it really giveth that which it promiseth, & is to the child that, which it doth signify. Contrariwise, the Cross, neither giveth any thing to the child, nor promiseth, nor is any other thing, than an outward Ceremony only, signifying that the child hereafter should not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified etc. Secondly, the word Dedicate doth not always signify, to sanctify or to Consecrate, but sometimes to appropriate, to appoint to some special use, to declare and testify, that the thing is assigned, addicted, and called out to such, for such a several purpose, office person, or service. And this is most manifest, by that use of this word, which is most ordinary and common in our speech: As namely to dedicate a book to a great parsonage, is not in in our language to consecrate, & sanctify it unto him, but by that word of Dedication, we testify and declare our love, duty, & affection towards him, & appoint the book so dedicated, to be a manifest sign, token, proof, argument, and declaration of our love. The word Dedicated therefore being Ecclesiastical, and very frequent in this signification, it was thought fit to be retained in this matter, rather than to take in a word more strange & nothing so significant: Especially considering, that there are many words, and sentences in that Canon, both affirmative and negative, very sufficient to declare, and make manifest unto all reasonable men, that the Church of England doth not attribute any sanctifiing, or consecrating of the child to the service of Christ, unto any virtue, grace, or power, of, or in the sign of the Cross. Thirdly though both the Sacrament, and the sign of the Cross may be said to dedicate, yet they do not both dedicated after the same sort, for the Sacrament doth dedicated as a sign, and as a Sacrament too, the Cross as a sign or ceremony only, the Sacrament doth dedicated as a cause efficient instrumental, working inwardly, by the operation of God's spirit, the Cross doth dedicated as a cause declaratory, testimonial, witnessing outwardly to the Church, and to the party that is baptised. And so much the very words of the Canon would have taught you, but that you would not learn, when it saith, Accounting it a lawful outward Ceremony, and honourable badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated, etc. The wearing of a badge, or cognizance of some noble man, or the colours of some Captain, doth not, I hope, in your apprehension, make the servant or soldier that weareth it, to be of such a noble man's retinue, or such a captains regiment. But because he is of that retinue, he weareth that badge or cognizance, and because he is of that regiment, he weareth those colours. And yet both the one and the other, doth make other men to know, & withal doth put himself in remembrance, that such a noble man's man, or such a captains soldier he is, and such he ought to show himself to be. Even so it is in the matter of the Cross. The sign of the Cross maketh not the child to be the servant, or soldier of Christ, but because by Baptism he is so made, therefore he is signed with that honourable badge, that thereby, both other men may know that he is the servant, and soldier of Christ, declaratory quoad alios, memoratiuè, et monitoriè quoad scipsum. and himself may be remembered, and admonised, that he is in all his life to show himself as the faithful servant of such a master, and the courageous soldier of such a captain: Which our Communion book most wisely, & beyond all exception of malice, setteth down in these religious terms. In token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the Devil, and to continue his faithful soldier and servant unto his lives end. Lastly, if the Canon should have said, sanctified, or consecrated, I perceive, we should have had much a do with the Treatiser: And yet all Antiquity, as afterwards I shall have better occasion to declare, Aug. de peccat. meritis & remissione, lib. 2. cap. 26. and specially St. Augustine teacheth us so to say. Catechumenos, saith he, secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi, & orationem manus impositionis, puto sanctificari. I think the Catechumeni are sanctified, after a certain manner of theirs, by the sign of Christ, and prayer of laying on of hands. But what need I allege St. Augustine, our own men use the word consecrare to signify, to allot, or appoint for some use, as I told you before the word dedicare did signify: As may appear at large by the testimony of Goulartius, Consecrare panem & vinum, Goulart. Cap. ep. 63. num. 39 est ea divinis ac sacris usibus destinare, etc. But our Canon of purpose declined those words, which might any ways breed offence unto the weak brethren, and made choice of this harmless and innocent word, Dedicated, which favourably understood, giveth no offence, and is far from all such danger of error & superstition, as the Treatiser would make the ignorant reader to believe. Your second accusation layeth two grievous Corruptions to our charge, as namely. 1 That in the sign of the Cross we do not that which the Ancients did. For Cyprian Augustine, Chrysostome, and others, as is apparent, at those times did consecrate the elements therewith, which we do not. 2 That we do that which the Ancients did not: For they did not cross the child's forehead at all, but referred that unto the bishops confirmation: So that our crossing the Infant's forehead, & not the element of Baptism, is a mere novelty, (of some 600. years standing as you say in the Margin) without any warrant of that antiquity. For answer to the first. That we do not all that the Ancients did, that is, not use the sign of the Cross 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 allege, of consecrating the Element with the sign of the Cross, were one of those Naevi of the Ancients? What if they, haply, did amiss in so doing, as you say afterwards they did? Or what if they did well in so doing, & the superstition was brought in afterwards? Will you have us to embrace their vices as well as their virtues? Or will you take away the liberty of our Church in making choice of her Ceremonies? Or will you hence conclude, that we may not retain their good things, for the which they are worthily commended, except we also receive those defects and imperfections, which succeeding ages brought in afterwards? But this is no way agreeable to reason: I rather think it better to follow that counsel that St. Hierom giveth, of reading Origens' works, Hieron. ad Tran. qutll l. 1. ep. 54. and to apply it to this matter of the Ceremonies of the Ancients, bona eorum eligamus, vitemusque contraria, juxta Apostolum dicentem, omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete etc. That we choose their good things, 1. Thess. 1. 21. and avoid the contrary, according to the Apostles saying, Try all things, keep that which is good. For they which are carried away, either with too much love, or with too much hatred of him, by the distemper of their stomach, seem unto me to be under that curse of the Prophet, woe be unto them, that call good evil, and evil good, Isai. 5.20. that make sour sweet, and sweet sour. But Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostome, and others did consecrate the Elements, you say, with the sign of the Cross, which we do not. They did indeed, and in those times they did it well: If we should now do the like, we could not choose, but do very ill. That they did well in so doing, I am the rather persuaded for my part, (For I am not willing to conceive any thing amiss of those blessed, and excellent instruments of God's glory, that by any reasonable construction of their words may be salved) because they did it without offence, in respect of others, and without opinion of virtue ascribed to the sign of the Cross, if you respect their own judgements. without offence to others, for at that time the Jnstitution of that Ceremony, & the reasons of the Jnstitution, were so well known unto all men, that no man could be ignorant of them, nor take offence at them: without opinion of virtue in the sign, in their own judgements, Because that consecration or sanctification which they attributed to the sign of the Cross, was rather in name so called, than 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 sign of the Cross, is most manifestly apparent 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 intrandum regnum coelorum, aut ad remissionem peccatorum. Again, they did not ascribe that consecration of the elements, how little soever they thought it to be, unto the sign of the Cross, which they made upon it, but always with the sign joined something else. So the same St. Augustine in that place when he saith, Cathechumenos secundum quendam modum suum puto consecrarï per signum Christi, doth not rest there, & say only, Cyp. de passion, dom cap. 11. Sect. 12. Signun Christi, but joineth 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 wisdom to suppress, as not making for your purpose) & cuncta peragat Nomen, quod omnibus nominibus eminet, a sacramentorum vicarijs invocatum. But of this we shall say more in the 12. section. That we should do very ill, if we should use this Ceremony now, these reasons induce me to conceive. First, The people are now more prone to error, and misconceit, than they were in those times. Secondly, some things, and among others this, were more fit for those times, then for these. Goulart. in syprian Epist. 56. ad Thibaritan. Distinguenda sunt tempora, saith Goulartius. and before him St. Augustine, and then it will easily appear, that that may be done well at one time, which cannot be done well at another. Aug. epist. 5. ad Marcellinum. Mutat â quip temporis causa, quod rectè ante factum fuerit, ita mutari vera ratio plerumque flagitat, ut cum aliqui dicant, non recte fieri, simutetur, contra veritas clamet, rectè non fieri nisi muteturiquia utrumque tum erit rectum, sierit pro temporum varietate diversum. As in a child many things are permitted by the Parents, which will not be, when he is come to riper years: So in that infancy and innocency of the Church, many things might well be done, by the Ancients, which cannot be well done by us, now in the manhood, or rather old age of the Church: And lawful it was for them, while Christianity was yet but green, to be led and brought on by those outward rudiments, which we have no need of now. If you ask, why these reasons, should not aswell make against the signing of the Child in the forehead, as against the signing of the Elements, The answer is easy: first, the danger is not so great, nor so remediless in the one; as in the other, Secondly, the ends are different: The signing of the Child's forehead was then, and is now, for admonition; The signing of the Elements, was then dangerous, and would now be desperate for consecration, if we should embrace it: And therefore me thinks, you should rather commend the wisdom of our Church, which out of the number of those Ceremonies, which were troublesome to good consciences, and burdensome to the Church, as that learned Bishop speaketh, jewel. in Apolog. hath culled those which were harmless, than any way dislike us, for not retaining all those ceremonies of this sign, which though used by the Ancients, might prove scandalous to the weaker sort. For answer to the Second, That we do that which the Ancients did not, for they did not cross the child's forehead at all, but referred that unto the Bishop's confirmation, I make no doubt, but the Treatiser by the Ancients, that he speaketh of, intendeth those especially, that were nearest unto the Apostles times, & that flourished within the compass of the first three hundred years: which by all 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 custom was most ordinary & frequent in all Churches. This supposed I answer: First, That either the Treatiser is deceived, or the whole Christian world for so many ages together, hath been very greatly overseen, that, ever since the first times, even from such as lived with the Apostles themselves, have received this consignation of the child's forehead in Baptism, 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 have reported before, in the 88 and 89. pages, but also by the Ancients, out of whom they learned it, whose authorities come now to be considered. So that if the Treatiser can reform this common error, of so many learned men, and of so long continuance, he shall do (no doubt,) a good work, & a great service to the Church of Christ; This he cannot bring about, except he either deny the authorities of the Ancients, or give their words some other interpretation, than they do apparently signify, & all men hitherto have made of them. Dionysius lib. Eccles. Hierar. cap. 4. & 5. Dionysius commonly called Areopagita (whether truly or falsely I will not discuss, but certainly a very ancient writer,) maketh often mention, of signing the party that is baptized, with the sign of the Cross, And to express that he meaneth the Cross in Baptism, he calleth the Sacrament of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sacrament or seal having the form of a Cross; And describing the manner how it was done, he saith, Imponit (minister) eius capiti manum, consignansque illum, sacerdotibus mandat, virum susceptoremque describant. This authority must needs be understood of Baptism, which he there describes, calling it Sacramentum illuminationis, and can by no interpretation be referred either to the Element, as is manifest by the words, Imponit eius capiti manum, consignansque illum, nor to the bishops confirmation. The like is to be thought of that place of justin Martyr, who flourished about the year of Christ 140. Just. Mart. resp add orth. q. 118. Dextrâ manu in nomine Christi consignamus eos, qui hoc signo egent: where, first all men understand him, to mean the consignation of the Cross. Secondly, that he cannot mean it of confirmation, it is more than probable, because he mentioneth only dexteram manum, whereas confirmation requireth imposition of both; ut adumbratio septiformis gratiae melius significaretur, that the acumbration of the sevenfold grace, might thereby be the better signified. Thirdly, it cannot be understood of the Element of Baptism, for his words are consignamus, etc. qui hoc signo egent. importing the persons, and not the Element. Neither lastly can it be referred to that use of the Cross, which they observe in actions of common life, because in that, every man did sign himself, but in this he speaketh of such as were signed by other men. The next that I will remember after him, is Origen (for Tertullians' testimony, because the Treatiser allegeth it against us, shallbe considered afterwards) who lived in the same age with Tertullian, though somewhat after him, about the year of our Lord 220. his words are these. Origen. Homil. 2. in Psal. 38. Tom. 1. non exprobremur ab insipiente, convertamus 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 front, meas autem voluntates, et meachirographa gerebat in cord. Ecce iste, qui mihi et operibus meis renunciavit in Baptismo, meis rursum operibus se inseruit meisque legibus paruit. This is an evident testimony against the Treatiser, mentioning both Baptism, and the sign of the Cross, and the forehead whereon it was signed. From Origen I come to St. Cyprian, who was famous in the Church about the year 250. whose testimonies against the Treatisers assertion, as I will not take upon me to repeat them all, (for they are very many,) so it cannot be either misliked or suspected, if Jacquaint the reader with some few: especially seeing the Treatiser himself doth acknowledge Cyprian to be the first, Sect. 12. Cyprian de unit. Eccl. ca 16. that maketh mention of the Cross in Baptism. In his treatise de unitate Ecclesiae, he hath these words. Ozias Rex leprae varietate in front maculatus est, caparte corporis notatus offenso Domino, ubi signantur, qui dominum promerentur. Again, to Demetrian Proconsul of Africa, 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 sixth Epistle add Thibaritanoes, Cap. 22. and his third book Testimon. ad Quirinum, not only Pamelius who may seem somewhat partial for the Cross, but Goulartius also, whom the Treatiser cannot suspect, do acknowledge that he speaketh of the Cross in Baptism. Lactantius that lived after Cyprian about some 50. years, and flourished in the beginning of the year 300 speaketh much to the same purpose. Extendit Christus in passione manus suas, De vera sapien. lib. 4 cap. 26. orbemque dimensus est ut iam tum ostenderet, ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, magnum populum ex omnibus linguis, & tribubus congregatum, sub alas suas esse venturum, signumque illud maximum atque sublime, in frontibus suis suscepturum. After Lactantius lived St. Basil the great in the Church of Caesarea Cappadociae, in the year 370. or there about, who rehearsing the traditions used in his time, Basil de spirit sacto. cap. 27. reckoneth this in the first place. 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 year 300. To rehearse his many testimonies were an endless work, and therefore I will content myself with two only, Aug. de fide & symb. ad Catech. lib. 4. cap. 1. the former in his fourth book de fide & Symbolo ad Catechumenos, which he beginneth with these words, Per sacratissimum crucis signum, vos suscepit in utero, sancta matter Ecclesia: and the latter in his exposition of the 30. Psalm. In Psalm 30. Non sine causa signum suum Christus in front nobis figi voluit, tanquam in sede pudoris, ne Christi opprobrio Christianus erubescat. To the which purpose he speaketh in Psalm. 141. usque adeo de cruce non erubesco ut non in occulto loco habeam crucem Christi, In Psal. 141. sed infronte portem, etc. To which place I refer the reader as also to his 53. and 118. Treatise, upon St. john: & his 181. sermon de tempore, and divers other places. So that these proofs of the Ancients duly considered, we may be bold to pronounce against the Treatiser, that the Ancients did use to sign the Child's forehead in Baptism, Demonst, prob. ca de signo crucis. Refut. Catech. Iesuitic. and to affirm with Mr. Perkins, Signum crucis per multa saecula fuit in sacramenti administratione, simplex ritus; and with Pezelius. vetus est haec Ceremonia ab ipsis incunabilis Ecclesiae Christianae usurpata. The collection therefore of the Treatiser is vain, when he concludeth after this sort. They that in the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, do not consecrate the Element, which the Ancients did, & do cross the Child's forehead, which the Ancients did not do not use the sign of the Cross, in Baptism as the Ancients did. But the Church of England in the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, doth not consecrate the Element, which the Ancients did, and doth cross the Child's forehead which the Ancients did not. Ergo. The Church of England doth not use the sign of the Cross in Baptism as the Ancients did. For first, touching the form, it is a Sophism compounded of all manner of Fallacies. that which is most apparent is, Fallacia compositionis: for ex propositione verâ in sensu composito, infert conclusionem falsam in sensu dinisio. Touching the matter, it is merely false. For in the Mayor it doth assume, that the Ancients did not use to sign the Child's forehead, which is refuted by their alleged authorities. Secondly he doth conclude the abuse of one Ceremony, by the Non use of another, which hath neither relation unto it, nor dependency on it, nor both are ordained to the same end: & therefore the one cannot necessarily infer the negation or affirmation of the other: as if with less ado. and in fewer circumstances, he should have concluded thus. They that in the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, do not use consecration of the Element at all do not use the consignation of the forehead well, and as the Ancients did. But the Church of England in the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, doth not use consecration of the Element at all. Ergo. The Church of England doth not use the consignation of the forehead rightly, and as the Ancients did. The not using of consecration at all, is no reason why the consignation of the forehead may not be used rightly. For though both agree in this, that they both be consignations, and are both used in the Sacrament of Baptism, yet they differ in this, that they are distinct Ceremonies, differing one from another in nature, for they are merely distinct, and have no dependency, the one of the other: & in use, For they are not ad Idem, they have not both reference to the same end and action. the one presumptuously going before the Sacrament, and arrogating to itself some kind of preparing of the Action, the other modestly, coming after, and admonishing us only, what we promised in the Action. I might better conclude thus against their novelties in the Lord's supper. They which do not receive the Communion kneeling, which the Ancients did, and do receive it standing or sitting, which the Ancients did not, do not receive the commumon as the Ancients did. But the Treatiser and his adherents do not receive the communion kneeling, which the a Geniculatio speciem habes piae & Christianae venerationis, ac proinde potuit olim cum fructu usurpari. Bez. Epist. 12. Ancients did, and do receive it standing or sitting, which the Ancients did not. Ergo: The Treatiser and his adherents do not receive the communion as the Ancients did. For here, though the Ceremonies of kneeling which the Ancients used, and of sitting or standing, which the Treatisers friends use, be different, the one from the other: yet both the affirmation 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 than the Ceremony of signing the forehead, doth thereupon conclude, that the most ancient of the Fathers used the consecration of the Element, long before the consignation of the forehead was heard of. Wherein he is exceedingly deceived▪ For though the Ceremony of consecration be of great antiquity, yet he may learn of Mr. Perkins that it is not to compare with consignation. Perkins daemon plobl cap. de signo crucis. For he saith, Annis a Christo 300 crux transiens, (which is the consignation of the Cross) fuit signum externae professionis fidei not only adhibitum in vitâ communi, as he saith, but in Baptism also, as before is proved out of the Ancients: But Mr. Perkins stayeth not there, he saith further vix unquam adhibita fuit ad signandum sacramenta, nisi circa annum 400. Neither then was it straightway used in consecrating of the Elements, but by degrees: primò ut signaret nobis Christi bona, Aug: tract: 118. in joannem: tum posteà ut per eam benedictio sacramenti & consecratio fieret. Why the Treatiser should deliver us this strange doctrine, That the Ancients did not use to sign the Child's forehead at all in Baptism, I cannot conceive: only I suppose his error might come thus: The Ancients speaking of two uses of the consignation, the one in common life, the other in the Sacrament, as is said before, do make far more often mention of the use in common life, then of the other, and sometimes join them both together in one period: So that except the judgement of the reader, can direct him to discern, which clause belongeth to the one use, & which to the other, the error in this point is very easy: And so it seemeth the Treatiser was deceived, applying all their speeches wheresoever, to the use in common actions, and referring none to that in the Sacrament of Baptism. But now let us see how he proveth his assertion. First the Ancients referred that, (saith he,) to the bishops confirmation, so that our crossing the infant's forehead, & not the Element of Baptism, is a mere novelty &c: True it is that in confirmation, the Child's forehead was signed by the Bishop, but how doth this convince, that in Baptism it was not signed by the Minister? That in confirmation, Tertull. de Bapt cap. 8. the Child● forehead was signed, we easily believe, for so Tertullian telleth us in many places, and Cyprian in his Epistle ad Jubaianum, Cypr. ep. 73. de Heret. baptiz. Cap. 8. Nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesia baptizantur, praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur, per nostram orationem, ac manus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur, et signaculo Dominico consummentur. But the affirmation of this doth not infer a negation of the other. Yes, say you, they referred that unto the Bishop's confirmation: They referred indeed confirmation, and all the rites, and Ceremonies thereof, unto the Bishop, as was meet: But did not they, think you, perform all the rites of Baptism themselves? your speech doth import as if you favoured confirmation, and allowed of the consignation there. If you favour it truly, I am glad: for the Ceremony of confirmation is ancient, and hath a good use (& yet I know not that our Bishops use the consignation of the Cross in that action) If you mention it only for your purpose, without any allowance of the confirmation, it seemeth you care not what you say, so you may give the least blow to our settled orders of the Church. It seemeth likewise, that you ascribe greater antiquity to the signing in confirmation, then to that in Baptism: For you infer immediately here upon, that our crossing the Jnfants' forehead is a mere novelty. I cannot yield, that the signing in confirmation should be auntienter than the signing in Baptism, no more than I can yield, that confirmation is auntienter then Baptism: And yet for all that, I acknowledge the signing in confirmation to be very ancient, & am glad to hear you argue for the antiquity of that, which your admonition to the Parliament so much extenuateth, calling it superstitious not agreeing to the word of God, Popish, and peevish, full of toys, & degenerating from the first institution: (I am glad I say, to hear you plead the antiquity of that Ceremony, though it be with opposition to an auntienter) but yet I neither acknowledge confirmation so ancient as Baptism: Nor the signing of confirmation, so ancient, as the signing of Baptism. Because you thought, we would not believe this strange speech of yours upon your bare word, without proof, you note unto us in your margin: Tertull. de Baptismo cap. 7. et 8. Euseb. l. 6. c. 42. Innocent. 1. ep. ad Decentium num. 3. Rabanus Maurus de institutione Clericorun, ca 30. Durand. Rational divin. li. 1 cap. de consecrat. You might have done well to have reported their words too, and no doubt, you would have done it, had they been so pregnant for your purpose, as you make show. Tertull. de baptis. cap. 9 Tertullian in that place confesseth indeed, that the sign was used in confirmation, but neither there, nor in any other place doth he deny it of Baptism. Your second authority showeth that Novatus the Heretic after his Baptism, Euseb li. 6 c. 42 reliqua consecutus non est post morbum, quae juxta Ecclesiae canonem consequi debebat, obsignationem videlicet ab Episcopo. But how doth this prove that the sign was not used in his Baptism? The like may be said to your testimony out of Innocentius, his words indeed are. Innocent. ad De cent ep. 1. tom. 1 coacil. De consignandis Infantibus manifestum est, non ab alio quam Episcopo fieri licere. But he speaketh this of confirmation, only which he there proveth must be ministered by the Bishop alone, he maketh no mention of Baptism at al. Your other two authorities out of Rabanus and Durandus speak somewhat more plainly & directly to your purpose: for the first saith signatur baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in capitis summitate, per pontificem vero in front, etc. Ruban. Maurus de Jnstitut. clerico. lib 1. c. 30. Durand. ration. divin. lib. 1. cap de consecrat. itan lib 6. cap. 83. The second saith: Christiani bis ante Baptismum inunguntur oleo benedicto, primò in pectore deinde inter scapulas, & bis post Baptismum, primò in vertice, deinde per Episcopum in front, making a distinction of the places: To these I answer. First, That they make a distinction of the place where this sign was made: in Baptism on the crown, in confirmation on the forehead: But they make no distinction of the sign, for they say, that the child in both was signed, whereas your proof should be, that the child was not signed in Baptism. Secondly, I say that this difference, of the upper part of the head, and the forehead, is a nice difference, and might well have been the devise of latter times: Especially seeing Durandus saith: Primaetres unctiones introductae sunt potius usu quam per aliquam scripturam. Thirdly, I answer that in Durands' time, the child in Baptism was not signed in the crown only, but in the forehead too: For so saith Durandus your own author: Durand. lib 6. ration. cap. 83. Sextum donum Baptismi est in vertice, id est in summitate capitis, super cerebrum cum chrismate facta perunctio: septimum est in front chrismatio: and that you may be sure, that this, in front chrismatio, was with the sign of the Cross, he tells you, that omnia chrismata cum crucis figurâ perficiuntur. Ibid. cap. 84. Lastly, I oppose to those late writers, the authorities of the Ancients before rehearsed, and withal the judgement and liberty of our Church, which rather chose to follow the uniform simplicity of the Ancients, than the diverse multiplicity of these latter writers, whom I suppose you do not quote, (especially Durandus) for any liking you have of them, or credit you yield to their authorities. But our crossing of the Infant's forehead, and not the Element of Baptism, is a mere novelty of some 600. years standing, etc. Our crossing of the Infant's forehead, & not the Element is no novelty, as hath been already showed. Your speech doth sound as if, if we did cross both the forehead, & the element: than 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. years standing, it is so manifest an untruth, as I marvel, you could be persuaded to set it down. Secondly, your second proof is out of Tertullian. Neither will that place of Tertullian, de resurrect. carnis, Cap. 8. prove the contrary: Caro abluitur, ut & anima emaculetur, caro ungitur ut anima consecretur, caro signatur, ut & anima muniatur, caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut & anima spiritu illuminetur, caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut & anima de Deo saginetur. Hence you gather that though indeed he mention the signing of the faithful, yet it may be as well referred to confirmation as to Baptism: True; And yet more properly to Baptism, than to confirmation. For in these words, alluding as you say, to divers Ceremonies of the Christians, it is far more likely (as any man that is acquainted with his articulate manner of writing will think) that he endeavoured rather, equally to fit each several clause to his several Ceremony, then to apply any one to two: which must needs follow upon your interpretation. Thirdly, your third proof is a probabili. It is more than probable, say you, that the sign of the Cross was not yet used etc. The probability you speak of, is none at al. Concerning justine Martyr in his second Apology to Antoninus, it was not necessary that he should there mention any thing more, than those things, which did belong to the substance of Baptism: For his purpose was to be brief, and not to propose every Ceremony of Christianity, but to mention only their prayers, and the things essential in the Sacrament. And therefore no marvel, if he did omit this Ceremony here, especially seeing he doth remember it else where, as hath been showed, & even in this Apology he saith before, that nothing was done, without this figure of the Cross. Concerning Tertullian, not remembering it in the places, you cite, who, you say, would not have omitted it, if it had been then used: especially in that very place, where he speaketh of the Cross, as used out of Baptism: I answer that even that might be sufficient reason, why he omitted it, when he spoke of Baptism: Because he that saith, omnem progressum, omnem promotum, and quacunque nos conversatio exercet etc. doth except none, and therefore not Baptism. Again he that saith it was used, in Actions of civil conversation, doth leave no place of doubt, but that it was much rather used in their holy actions of Religion. Lastly there are some learned men, that understand those words in the seventh chapter: Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur benedicta unctione, Tert. de Bapt. cap. 7. of the sign of the Cross, which was used in all anointings, as you heard before out of Durandus. Treatise. 11. Sect. 2. Objection. But the sign of the Cross is not used in Baptism, but when Baptism is ended. Treatisers answer to our 2. Objection If you take Baptism, only for that dipping and sprinkling of the party, it is true, and so none of the Popish additions, whereby they defile the holy Sacrament, are in Baptism, for those, which apud Bellar. Baptism. comitantur are not impious; But if you take Baptism, as indeed we do, for the administration of that Sacrament, then both the prayers before, and the prayers after the Actions, after the dipping, do all indifferently belong to one and the self same thing: yet it is all, una & continua actio administrationis sacramenti: Sure it is, that it must be said to be, either in Baptismo, extra Baptismum, aut nullibi, if it be out of Baptism, how is it by common consent of all said to be, signum crucis in Baptismo. Reply to the Treatisers answer to our second objection. This whole answer to our second objection is nothing else but a mere cavil of the Treatisers: For though the whole action, being una et continua actio administrationis sacramenti, as you-name it, be called Baptism: Yet it is so called, a digniori part, and therefore we may very well, & aught always to distinguish, between those things, which are essential in this action, and those things, which are accidental, between those things which are for substance of Baptism, and those things 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 Baptism as we do: Beza resp. ad Franc. Baldwin. for otherwise None of the Popish additions, whereby they defile that holy Sacrament, are in Baptism, for those which apud Bellarminum Baptismum comitantur, are not impious: All this notwithstanding, you must give us leave to distinguish those things which in their own nature are distinct: True it is that none of those quae apud Bellarminum Baptismum comitantur, are of their own nature impious, neither are they of the essence of Baptism, and therefore we hold, that they which are baptized, 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 affection towards our Church: Our signing with the Cross in Baptism is Antichristian, as you 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 Baptism, & not in essentia Baptismi. It is in Baptism as an outward decent Ceremony, and ornament of the action, not as an inward part or substance of the Sacrament. Treatise. Section. 12. 3. Objection. The sign of the Cross is very ancient. Treatisers answer to our 3. objection. So are many popish traditions, and if on that ground, we are to retain it, why do we not give the Baptized, lactis et mellis concordiam? why do we not bring offerings for the dead? for Tertullian the first of the Fathers that ever mentioned the Cross, doth establish these, & the sign of the Cross, by one, and the self same warranty. Besides if upon the Father's tradition we use the Cross, then must we receive, and use it, as they have delivered it unto us, that is, with opinion of virtue, & efficacy, not only in the Act of blessing ourselves, and in the expelling of Devils, but even in the consecration of the blessed Sacraments: De coron, milit. For the first Tertullian is witness. Ad omnem progressum, ad omnem promotum, ad omnem aditum, atque exitum, ad vestitum et calceatum, frontem crucis signaculo terimus: Lib. 2. 20. epist. ad Demetr. Lib. 4. cap. 17. For chase of Devils, Hierome counseleth Demet. vir. to use the Cross: 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 mentem, ea daemones ulciscitur, ea tollit morbos animae. But these superstitions are small in regard of that efficacy, which in the Sacraments, Cyprian. de passion. antiquity ascribed unto the Cross: For Cyprian (being the auntientest, that maketh mention of the Cross in Baptism) speaketh of it. cuius virtus omnia peragit Sacramenta, sine quo signo nihil est sanctum, nec; aliqua consecratio meretur effectum, And again: Quicunque sunt Sacramentorum ministri, qualescunque sunt manus quae vel mergunt accedentes ad Baptismum, vel ungunt, qualecunque pectus, de quo sacra exeunt verba, operationis autoritas in figura crucis omnibus Sacramentis largitur effectum: August. in joh. tract: 118. Quod signum inquit nisi adhibeatur sive frontibus credentium, sine ipsi aquae, qua regenerantur, sive oleo quo Chrismate inunguntur, sive sacrificio quo aluntur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur: It were superfluous to rehearse the rest. Reply to the Treatisers answer to our third Objection. I looked in this place, that you would rather have proved, the novelty of this Ceremony, and that it is no ancienter than of some 600. years standing (as you please to jest before) then so easily yield, that it is very ancient, as here you do: For you do not deny the antiquity, that which was objected, but imply, That antiquity is no cause sufficient why we should use it, because, say you, so are many other Popish traditions. Your answer containeth these two brances. 1 If antiquity be a cause, why we should retain it, why should we not retain other Ceremonies also, as ancient as this? 2 If upon the Father's tradition we use the Cross, why then do we not use it with opinion of virtue & efficacy, as they have delivered it? Unto this your answer you add by way of Corollary that though it be ancient, yet antiquity could never free it from sin, & superstition; whereupon you make two observations. 1 How dangerous a thing it is to bring in any human invention into the service of God. 2 How it may justly be reputed Popish & Antichristian, though it were before those times wherein Popery and Antichrist were hatched. First: we do not think, that Antiquity alone without reason and truth, is cause sufficient, why we should retain a Ceremony: Yet it may give us good cause, to examine the reasons, that moved the fathers to use it, and not without just cause rashly to abrogate and disannul it. Now because our Church by examining those reasons, that caused the Fathers to institute, & use this Ceremony of the Cross in Baptism, hath found, that as it was then, so it may be still a Ceremony of decency, and profitable admonition in the Church: she hath therefore according to that liberty, which in matter of Ceremony, is permitted to every several Church, retained this, & abrogated some other, which in her judgement, seemed both more burdensome, & less profitable. These reasons concurring with antiquity, add the greater weight unto it, as on the other side, it addeth also unto them; & all of them together yield cause very sufficient, why some ancient Ceremonies rather be retained, than other some. And therefore to your first question, why do we not use other ancient Ceremonies as well as this, I answer, Because our Church thought them not so necessary, nor convenient. She might, no doubt, have still retained them, if she would: For I willingly submit my weaker judgement to that most grave, and learned judgement of Mr. Bucer: Bucer in 4. ca ad Ephes. De caeteris signis, quae in sacris adhibita sunt à veteribus, vel hody adhibentur à multis, ut sunt ignis ad exorcismos, & catechismos, & alba vestis Baptizatorum, sacer panis qui dabatur Catechumenis, & pleraque alia sic sentio: Si quae Ecclesiae essent, quae puram Christi tenerent doctrinam, et sinceram seruarent disciplinam, hisque signis uterentur simpliciter, et pure, absque omni superstitione, vel levitate, precise ad pias admonitiones, easque probe omnibus intellectas, eas Ecclesias non possum equidem, propter signorum talem usum condemnare. Your two examples of Lactis et mellis concordia, and offerings for the dead, are ancient Ceremonies indeed, & in those times, had, no doubt, their very good & profitable use: 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. & therefore though Tertullian doth establish these, & the sign of the Cross, with the same warranty of tradition, or Ecclesiastical constitution, yet our Church counteth them not so necessary, nor so fit for these latter times. The second branch of your answer is: If upon the Father's tradition, we use the Cross, then must we receive, and use it, as they have delivered it unto us, that is with opinion of virtue and efficacy: Supposing that this opinion of virtue & efficacy (whereof we shall say more afterwards) was evil in the Fathers, yet there is no reason, why we having free liberty to make our choice, should be bound to take their evil things with their good, as hath been showed before out of St. Hierome: For he that gave us the free commission of omnia probate, Pag. 97. restrained us only to good things in our choice quod bonum est tenete. But my affection (willing I confess in nothing rashly to accuse the Ancients) leadeth me rather to think, that even this opinion of virtue & efficacy that you speak of, was no evil thing in them, For though they used the consignation of the Cross, in those actions, that you mention a little after, yet they yielded no opinion of virtue and efficacy, to that sign, but to the Cross, & passion of Christ, whereof that sign was an outward token and resemblance: And this I hope to make apparent to the indifferent reader, in every particular of your accusation. First therefore you accuse them for ascribing virtue & efficacy, to the sign of the Cross in the Act of blessing themselves, in common conversation: & this you prove out of Tertullians' Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, etc. But what if they by this act of signing themselves with the sign of the Cross, did not intend blessing of themselves, as you term it, but remembrance of Christ's benefits performed for them on the Cross? For so S. Cyrill answereth julian the Apostata, when he had called the Christians, Cyrill. Alexand coner. julianum lib 6. tom. 3. miseros quibus curae esset semper, & d●mos & frontes, signo pretiosae crucis signare: Haec omnia (saith he) meaning the benefits of Christ's passion which he had recited before) recordari nos facit salutare lignum, 2. Cor. 5.15. & suadet, ut cogitemus quòd, sicut dicit divinus Paulus, unus pro omnibus mortuus est ut viventes non ultrà sibijpsis vivant sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est & resurrexit. And a little after, pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriam omnis boni & omnis virtutis. What if they ascribed not this which you call blessing, to the sign of the Cross, but to Christ's passion, represented and remembered unto them by this sign? for so M. Perkins teacheth you to think of them: Crux (apud veteres) non significat ipsum signum crucis, Perkins demonst prob. cap. de signo crucis. sed per Metonymiam passionem crucifixi. To which purpose he expoundeth Constantine's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est, Deo, non signo: and citeth an authority of Chrysostome, Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 55. Crucem non simpliciter digito in corpore, sed magna profecto fide in mente formare oportet. And afterwards concludeth all that he had said before, with this most excellent rule, how the Fathers are to be understood. when they attribute any thing to this sign: Omnia dicta Patrum, (saith he) ubi crucem, spem, redemptionem, ac salutem &c: esse volunt, intelligenda esse relatiuè, ut referantur ad passionem Christi, vel ad ipsum crucifixum, signo crucis representatum: So that not only the Fathers reposed no such virtue and efficacy in the sign, but also, if any man should use it now, (which yet I will not commend unto any man, by reason of the scandal it may bring with it) I hold that judgement of Hemingius very sound, Hemin. in 1▪ ep. joan. cap. 5. Qui manè surgens, et vesperi cubitum vadens▪ signat se cruse, in signum militiae Christianae, non est culpandus, modo absit superstitio. Secondly you accuse them for ascribing virtue and efficacy to the sign of the Cross, in expelling and chase away of Devils, for proof 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 authorities I easily grant to be true, and a number such like, in the writings of the fathers: and yet I deny that in those speeches, they ascribe any opinion of virtue or efficacy to the sign of the Cross. This is not mine own opinion only, but I learn it of that excellent divine Hier. Zanchius. I doubt not, saith he but that sometimes Satan was driven away indeed at the sign of the Cross, Hier. Zanch. de redempt lib. 6. ●●●. 366. as Augustine reporteth many miracles to have been done with that sign, and the Devil also, to have been chased: De civitate Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. Verun non propter vimsigni, sed propter virtutem fidei, in Christum crucifixum, qua praediti erant, et sunt fideles, in fugam vertebatur, atque 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 usi sunt, id tamen fuit sine superstitione: et doctrina de Christi merito ab errore, qui postea irrepsit, pios seruavit immunes, Cyprian himself speaketh so fully to this purpose, as any man that marketh his words cannot conceive so grossly of the Ancients: Cypr. de passion. Christi. cap. 11. His words be these, I am videt Hebraeus, et quicunque de servitute Aegyptia ad repromissae patriae libertatem anhelat, quòd sanguis Christi efficacius, quam sanguis agni illius, quem in Aegypto Israel immolavit, contrarias abig at potestates: cuius hodiè tanta est autoritas, & potestas, ut non solum Israelitica limina muniat, sed etiam ab ijs qui Israeliticè non vivunt, solum Sacramenti signum repellat Daemonia, & ubicunque conspecta fuerit, terribilis sit sacri nominis virtus, & sanguinis nota. This testimony I have rehearsed at large, because it most excellently delivereth unto us, as well his own opinion, as the opinion of all the Ancients, touching this sign. And yet if you desire a plainer testimony, hear M. Perkins, who in most express & significant terms utterly acquitteth them of your unjust accusation. Perkins daemon prob. cap. de signo crucis. Veteres (saith he) secruce contra Daemones munierunt, non quod externo signo crucis tantam vim & efficacian adscrip serint, sed hac solenni ceremonia suam fiduciam in crucem id est, mortem Christi, apud alios testari, et quodam quasi monitorio fidem excitare volverunt, quae omnia mala de pellit: And because you shall not have the use of this Ceremony without a reason, Zanchius telleth you why it pleased God to show such power at the making of this sign, ut illos in sincera fide confirmaret, Zanch. loco supra citate. qui primam ad Christi veniebant religionem Thirdly you accuse them for ascribing virtue and efficacy, to the sign of the Cross, in consecration of the blessed Sacraments, And this you aggravat with Tragic words. For these superstitions, say you, are small in regard of that efficacy, which in the Sacraments Antiquity ascribed unto the Cross: and this point you prove out of St. Cyprian de Bapt. & passione Christi & St. Aug. 118. tract: upon St. john. All these authorities I willingly acknowledge: But withal I must give you to understand, that you cite your first authority out of St. Cyprian, Cyprian. de bap. Christi cap. 2. mala fide, For there, by the Cross he meaneth Christ's passion, wherein the Apostle St. Paul boasteth: Cyp: de pass. Christi cap. 11. and your second partially and to your own advantage, as partly hath been told you before: For after these words: Operationis autoritas in figura crucis, omnibus Sacramentis largitur effectum, you should have added that which immediately followed, Et cuncta peragit nomen, quod omnibus nominibus eminet, a Sacramentorum Vicarijs inu●catum, & then the latter part of the Sentence would have cleared the former, from that most wrongful imputation that you lay upon it. S. a Quando per crucem Christi quam f●●erunt m●…li, in celebratione sacrament●●um, eius bonum nobis omne signatur, & so Mast Perkins himself expounds it. daemon prob. ca de signo crucis. Aug. in that place showeth, not how the Cross sanctifieth, but how it signifieth. It is a very strong and strange conceit of yours that could induce you to think, that the Ancient Fathers were so simple, as to ascribe any efficacy of consecration of the Sacraments, unto the sign of the Cross, you cannot be ignorant, that the name or word of consecration, is an Ecclesiastical word, of frequent use in the matter of Sacraments, called sometimes Sanctification as in Cyprian, and divers others, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invocation, as in St. Basill, and Theodoret, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Benediction, as Mat: 26: 26: Mark. 14.22. 1. Cor. 10.16. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thanksgiving 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. Paul calleth the cup. 1. Cor. 10.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The cup of blessing, which we bless, referring this blessing not unto God, but unto the cup: insomuch as Oecumenius expoundeth the Apostle, as if he had said thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the cup of blessing which we bless, that is which we prepare with praise and thanksgiving. It is evident therefore, that the name of consecration, when we speak of the Sacraments, is no such name as we should be afraid of, having so good warrant for it: especially in the Scriptures. The thing that is signified by the name, would likewise be considered, that thereby we may also judge, whether the Ancients be justly taxed by the Treatiser. The thing therefore signified by this name, was nothing else among the Ancients, but a sequestration of the Elements, from their common use, and a sanctifiing of them, by prayer, & invocation, and thanksgiveing unto God, to that holy use which was proper to the Sacraments: as of the water in Baptism that it might be sanctified, to the mystical washing away of sins: of the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, that it might be prepared & sanctified to the spiritual eating of Christ's body, Aug count Faust Manich li. 20. cap. 13. Tom. 6. and drinking of his blood. 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 Ancient Fathers are free from blame, for even we also in our Church do the same thing: For we likewise do by prayer and invocation sanctify the Elements, (which are otherwise of their own nature ordained for common use,) that they may serve for holy uses: and that those things, which were before necessary helps, for the use of life, and cleansing of our bodies, may now become effectual signs of regeneration, and of the body and blood of Christ, for the nourishing of our souls. Neither do we now in our Church abhor the name of consecration, not think the thing to no purpose, but ascribe unto it a certain effect of change, that it worketh in the Elements, not of their substance, into an other, nor of their natural qualities, (as the Papists conceive their Magical consecration) to effect Transubstantiation, but of their use, and service only; that those things which were for common use before, are now dedicated and appropriated to these holy uses. Again a man that truly esteemeth, that the Fathers ascribe no virtue nor efficacy to the sacraments themselves▪ will easily free them from this imputation, of ascribing virtue and efficacy to the sign of the Cross in Consecration. For how can any man imagine: that they which attribute the virtue and efficacy of consecrating the Elements to the sign of the Cross, should not much more ascribe unto the Elements so consecrated, some efficacy and virtue of themselves? Now that they ascribed no such power unto the Sacraments themselves, nor had any conceit of grace to be conferred by the opus operatum of the Sacraments, as the schoolmen afterward conceived, we have most full and certain assurance out of their own testimonies. S. Hierome saith. Qui plena fide non accipiunt Baptisma, non spiritum sanctum, sed aquam percipiunt S. Ambrose likewise to the same purpose, spiritus munus est, gratiam implere mysterij. St. Augustine is plentiful in this argument. Sacramenta, non quiae sumuntur sed quia creduntur, sanctificant. And again, in fidelibus & Electis Sacrament a hoc verè efficiunt quod figurant. And again, 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 novo Test 59 De unct.▪ Chrismatis cap. 3. unde tanta vis aquae, ut corpus tangat & cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia exeditur? And St. Cyprian most plainly of all. Effectum sanctificatis Elementis, non propria eorum natura praebet, sed virtus divina potentiùs operatur, ut adsit veritas signo & spiritus sacramento: atque 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 used the sign of the Cross, and ascribed this consecration, & sanctifying of the Elements unto that sign. They used the sign of the Cross therein indeed, and thence are these speeches of theirs which you alleged. But they ascribed not this consecration, and hallowing to the sign of the Cross, but unto Christ's death, whereof the Lords Supper is a remembrance. 1. Cor. 11 24. Do this in remembrance of me And Baptism a similitude or representation, we that are baptized into Christ jesus, Rom. 6.3.4. are baptized into his death, and die buried with him by Baptism into his death, etc. And therefore in these Sacraments of Christ's death, they made the sign of the Cross, whereon he died, to signify that it was his death, that gave efficacy and virtue to these Sacraments. Also they ascribed this efficacy and power, not unto the sign of the Cross, but unto the words of consecration, or if you will rather so call them, of Christ's institution according to that of S. Augustine. Accedat verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. And because the words of Christ's institution refer us always to his death, therefore they made in the pronouncing of them, the sign of the Cross, whereon he died. Hence it is, that though they used the sign of the Cross in consecration, yet they attributed not the virtue of consecration unto it, but unto Christ and his institution. And therefore St. Cyprian, wheresoever he mentioneth the one, Cypr. testim. ad Quirin. lib. 2. cap. 21. doth always join the other with it: As, in passione crucis, et signo virtus omnis est, & potestas; & in the examples before rehearsed, with Figura crucis, he joineth peragit nomen invocatum, and with signum repellat daemonia, he joineth, sacri nominis virtus, & sanguinis nota. Aug: serm 181. de Temp. vide & serm. 19 de Sanctis. The like doth S. Aug. Omnia quaecunque sanctificantur hoc signo dominicae crucis cum invocatione Christi nominis consecrantur. The distinction that you make between Tert. & Cyp. that Tert. should be the first of the Fathers that ever mentioned the Cross, & Cyprian the ancientest, that maketh mention of the Cross in Baptism, is a very vain & frivolous distinction. For (to keep myself within the compass of those Ancients that I have before cited,) both justin Martyr, before Tertullian, mentioneth the Cross: & Tertullian himself, as also Origen, which were before Cyprian, make mention of the Cross in Baptism, as before I have declared. It were superfluous, say you, to rehearse the rest, & these too, except you rehearsed them to better purpose. Treatise. 13. Sect. But hereby it is evident, that the religious use of the Cross, was even at the first sinful, and superstitious, neither can it be showed, that it was ever used by the Fathers: Religionis ergò sine admixta superstitione, and this invention did no sooner creep into the Sacrament, but it drew unto itself such superstitious conceit of efficacy & necessity, that without it, the means which God appointed for the consecration of the Elements, seemed over weak, yea unavaileable, according as some a Lately in Surrey a child rebaptized, because the Cross was omitted. amongst us, account not their children lawfully baptized yea, will have them rebaptized, if the Cross have been omitted. Answer. This is that which you add, by way of Corollary, to your answer, importing thus much in effect, as I conceive: That though the sign of the Cross be very ancient, yet antiquity could not free it from sin, and superstition: we do not allege the antiquity of the Cross, as an argument to free it from sin and superstition, which we think in our use, and in the use of the Ancients, it is not infected with. But we allege it, as an argument why it should not be rashly changed, and taken away, as you would have it, both because it was ordained upon good reason, and advise at the first, and hath been used ever since, with no small profit to the Church. As for the evidence you talk of, it doth not yet appear, the use of it in actions of religion, without opinion of virtue and efficacy, was ever free from sin & superstition. But to this your accusation, I shall need to speak nothing in this place, because I have 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 use, and repose unto us your old Crambe of Religionis ergò, so often recocted. Your second objection, that this invention did no sooner creep into the Sacrament, but it drew unto itself such superstitious conceit, of efficacy etc. Is likewise answered in the last section, the conceit of superstitious necessity, that, you say, it drew unto it, that without etc. is the fault of the persons that so conceived of it, & not of the sign itself: For this sign of the Cross perinde est, atque is qui utitur, bene utentibus bonum est, male utentibus malum est, And therefore the best way to reform this misconceit, is to instruct them aright, that do thus superstitiously conceive of it, A far better way then utterly to abolish it, as may appear even by your own example of a child lately rebaptized in Surrey, because the Cross was omitted: For if this be true, it is manifest, that the taking of the use of the Cross clean away, would scandalise & alienate more men's minds from our church, than the retaining of it still can do; for seeing that they that will take offence at the removing of it, are the weaker and you that know 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 mildness should bear with their infirmities, by allowing the lawfully established use thereof, them they should have any cause of offence given unto them, by the utter abrogating and removing of it. If any man among us, upon such conceit of necessity of this sign, as you intimate, have caused his Child to be rebaptized, because the Cross was omitted, Charity bids me not to doubt, but that the wisdom, & authority of our chief Governors, have had an eye unto it, & the Minister that gave the offence, hath been heartily 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 occasion of falling to them that are weak: But now we will consider your two observations. Treatise. 14. Sect. Out of which may be observed, first how dangerous a thing it is to bring in any human invention, into the service of God, sith in the very pure age of the Church it was punished with such a spiritual 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 Father's times, so that as worshipping of Angels in Paul's time, Colloss. 2.18. prayers, 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 be taken for Popish and Antichristian, even in the Father's times, seeing they then made a way for the Beast, and since have received farther impiety, & authority from him. Wherhfore, to conclude, as I say exhorteth God's people, to keep themselves from the rites & pollutions of the Heathen, saying, depart, depart ye, go out from them, and touch no unclean thing: so the spirit in the same manner, chargeth the Church not to middle with the corruptions of Antichristian Babylon, but go out of her my people, saith he, that you may not be partaker of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. The fear of which curse doth keep us from all the superstitious, and idolatrous ceremonies of that whorish Synagogue. Answer. Touching your first observation, How dangerous a thing it is, etc. Though I have said sufficiently before, yet this one word I add more by way of remembrance: That if human invention be brought into the Church, either with a purpose to attract any thing from the institution of God, or to equal them to God's ordinance, or to obscure & darken Christ's institution, or to impose a yoke or burden upon men's consciences, or with opinion either of efficacy or necessity, or with mixture of impiety and superstition, or that they should be esteemed any otherwise of, then of things indifferent: then we confess, that it is indeed a thing very dangerous to bring any human invention into the service of God: and that the curse of God will always accompany such inventions. But on the contrary side, if they be brought into the Church, only as Ceremonies, to attend God's institution, as ornaments for decency, order, edification, and admonition, or if the causes, ends, and uses, for which they were first instituted, remain still: (all which circumstances concur, in our use of the Cross in Baptism,) than we see no reason, why they may not lawfully be used in God's service; and hold them not only free from God's curse, but also accompanied with his blessing, so long as they are retained and observed with these limitations: Touching your second observation, how a thing may be justly reputed Popish & Antichristian, though it were before that monster of Popery and Antichrist were hatched. I must needs say, you bring us to a pretty & strange speculation, and derive the pedigree of Popish Antichristianisme farther, than he that began the Trojan war gemino ab ovo: for you fetch it from before the egg, & the Hen too, and make me to remember that vaunt of the Arcadians, that boasted they were before the Moon. That a Ceremony, that is opposite unto the Doctrine & Gospel of Christ, (as you wrongfully suppose this to be) may be Antichristian, before Popery, I do not deny, for, Even now, saith Saint john of his times, 1. joh. 2.18. there are many Antichristes: 2. Thess. 2. The mystery of iniquity began to work betimes; It wrought in Simon Magus, and his followers, while Christ was yet alive; It wrought in Elimas the Sorcerer, in the false Apostles, and in the Nicholaitans, in Menander, Ebion, and Cerinthus, even in the apostles times; All these were antichrist's: And any heresy either in doctrine or Ceremony, that they held against the truth & word of Christ was Antichristian. But that a thing should be Popish and Antichristian, and that before Popery was hatched is in my understanding as if you should have said, The chicken was a bird before the Hen peeped out of the shell. As in other things, so in Antichristianisme, Tempora sunt distinguenda: or else we shall make a confusion of all things, and so speak of heresies, as if all heresies were but one heresy: and those which St. john calleth many Antichrists, were but one Antichrist, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Antichrist whom you conceive the Papacy to be. Coll. 2.18. You prove this, a simili, as worshipping of Angels in S. Paul's time, etc. Antichristian they might be rightly counted, because they were against the truth, and doctrine of Christ, Popish they could not, because neither was Popery yet heard of, nor had the Papacy yet embraced those superstitions. Again, that a thing should be Popish or Antichristian, is not in the thing, but in the minds of them that make it Popish and Antichristian. For this you have been often told, that no ceremony can be Popish & Antichristian of itself: Bucer de sacris vest. ad Hopp. Ritum aliquem Aaronicum esse vel Antichristianum, in nullis haeret Dei creaturis, in nulla vest, in nulla figura, in nullo colore, aut ullo Dei opere, sed in animo & professione, bonis Dei creaturis, ad impias significationes abutentium. Things are good, saith he farther, not only in their natural effects, as bread in the effect of feeding, & strengthening of the body: wine, in the effect of drinking & heating: but also in their divers significations & admonitions: Quae scriptura docet, diabolo, vel malis hominibus, eam factam esse potestatem, ut abusu suo ullam queant Dei creaturam, et bonam etiam significando et admonendo, per se malam facere et impiam? wherefore nothing can be said to belong to the priesthood of Aron, but that which is used to that superstition, as if it were necessary and profitable of itself to salvation, even now after Christ is revealed; or whereby some occasion, to embrace or retain that superstition, or to trouble the concord of Brethrens, may be ministered: So likewise no rite can be called Antichristian, but that, whereby some profession, and communication with Antichrist may be showed, or may serve to that profession or communication: And a little after he hath these words, very pertinent and effectual to this purpose: Eam enim libertatem etc. For if any man will say that this liberty (of Ceremonies) may be permitted to no Church of Christ, he must needs yield to one or other of these inconveniences, Ether that nothing is granted to the Churches touching the Lord's supper, but that wheteof they have the express commandment of Christ, and then all the Churches must be condemned of wicked boldness and presumption etc. Or that there are not any Churches, which the Lord doth so far free from all suspicion and abuse of his good creatures, that all the good creatures of God are pure (through true faith in his name) to them that are pure, yea even in their signification; which who soever shall say, he therein must also deny, Christ to be that Lord, which he hath promised himself to be to all men, that is, their deliverer from all uncleanness: Or that wicked men by their abuse can so pollute the creatures of God, which are good of themselves, as they can serve no godly man to a godly use: which is manifestly against the testimony of the holy Ghost: Rom: 14.14. 1. Cor. 8.4. et 9.20. 1 Tim. 4.4. Or certainly that it is not lawful for Christians, to dispose of all things, for admonition of their Creator and ours, of his benefits towards us, and of our duties towards him: which is repugnant to that, that the holy Ghost teacheth every where, concerning the knowledge and worship of God in all his works, and doing all things in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, to the glory of the father. This testimony of Mr. Bucer I have therefore repeated at large, because therein two things very effectual to this present question are delivered. First, that the church hath liberty and power to ordain things indifferent in God's service: And secondly, that no abuse of other men can so pollute the creatures of God, as that the pollution should ever after cleave to the creatures, as the Leprosy of Naaman did unto Giezi: but the corruption remaining only in the minds of them that did defile the creatures, they become again pure, to them that are pure, that is, to the faithful. Whence it followeth necessarily, that nothing can be justly reputed Antichristian unto any, but unto them that use it to that end, that Antichristian profession may be advanced by it, or with that opinion, that they that are Antichristian do ascribe unto it: whereupon it must as necessarily ensue, that seeing we in the Church of England, do not use the sign of the Cross in Baptism, to advance the profession of Antichrist, nor with those opinions that Popish Antichristes do ascribe unto it, therefore unto us it remaineth pure and clean, & leaveth the Popery and Antichristianisme, that it had, sticking still in the minds and consciences of Popish Antichrists. The foundation therefore of your observation being thus shaken, we will now try the joints and sinews of your argument, whereby you would conclude this Ceremony to have been Antichristian in the Ancients, and therefore must be also such in us. 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 taken for Popish and Antichristian. But the abuses and opinion of virtue, and efficacy, that the Ancients had of the sign of the Cross, were the beginnings of the whorish fornications, and made way for the beast. Ergo The abuses and opinion of efficacy and virtue, that the Ancients had of the sign of the Cross, may well be taken for Popish and Antichristian. To the Mayor. That which was the beginning etc. It is true in them, in whom it was the beginning of whorish fornications, and in whom it made way for the beast, as in Simon Magus, Elimas, the Nicholaitans, the false apostles, and the Heretics: all which, no doubt, gave the beginnings to the whorish fornications, and made way to the beast. In the holy fathers that did not so, it cannot be justly reputed Popish, or Antichristian, as hath been declared in the last words before. To the Minor: But the abuses etc. It is false: for the Ancients did not abuse it, neither had any opinion of virtue and efficacy of it, as is showed in the 12. sect: & therefore your conclusion toucheth none but them, that were forrunners of Antichrist; It cannot touch the Ancient fathers, that opposed themselves, to the first working of the mystery & resisted the Heresies, that made way to the Beast. Like unto this is your reason that you make against our present use. That which hath since received farther impiety, and authority from the Antichrist, may justly be taken for Popish & Antichristian now. But the sign of the Cross in Baptism in the Church of England, hath since received farther impiety & authority from the Antichrist. Ergo The sign of the Cross in Baptism in the Church of England, may justly be taken for Popish and Antichristian now. The Mayor of this argument holdeth true as the Mayor of the former did, that is, in them in whom it hath received farther impiety, and authority from Antichrist, In others in whom it hath not received farther impiety, it holdeth not. The Minor is false, for in the Church of England the Popish abuses of the Cross, have received neither further impiety, nor authority, but contrariwise are all removed; and the first sincere use of the Ancients is retained: For we use this sign of the Cross, in truth, to no other purpose, than we use the name or word Cross, that is, only for signification and admonition; and seeing there is no other difference between than, but what the word soundeth unto the ear, that the sign representeth unto the eye, why should there be more fault found with the one, than with the other? or why should our using of more outward means, for helping our infirmities, in remembering Christ's passion be misliked, Seeing in all other matters, the more means we use to help our weakness, the better we reckon of them: Beza in defen. & reprehends. Sebast. Castell. Ex quo nostrae redemptionis pretium in cruse pependit, illud ipsum crucis vocabulum an ten ignominiosissimum, nobis Christianis factum est honorificentissimum. If the word Cross be so honourable, because our Saviour sometimes hung upon the Cross, why should the sign of the same thing be so dangerous and pernicious? And therefore your conclusion no way hurteth the Church of England, but only in the unjust calunniation, that it layeth upon it, and in it upon the Ancients whose reputation, and integrity, touching the Cross, standing good as for any thing you can say against it (it always will) it is not possible for you to fasten the Popish abuses, and whorish fornications of the Romish Antichrist upon our Church. The exhortation, wherewith you conclude this your Treatise is good, in Thesi unto all men, & even in this particular Hypothesis of the Cross in Baptism, to them that are entangled, & defiled with Popish conceits, & superstitions. But unto us, that are no ways partakers of those corruptions, you might very well have forborn it. The fear of a curse, least being partakers of the Romish antichrist's sins, you should also receive of her plagues, keeps you, you say, from his superstitious Idolatries: The fear of a curse, aught, no doubt, to be a great bridle to restrain all men from doing evil. But we invite you not to be partakers of the Romish antichrist's sins, but only of our society, in our innocent and harmless Christian Ceremonies. Wherein if you fear a curse, you fear where no cause of fear is. If you fear a curse indeed, as you pretend, you shall do well to translate this fear of yours, from the harmless use of the Cross, wherein either there is no danger at all (as we are persuaded) or no certain danger (which yourselves cannot prove) unto the most certain & undoubted danger of disobedience; whereunto, without all peradventure, there is due a fearful and severe curse, as we are taught by the exampls of Corah, Numb. 16.1. Dathan, and Abiram in the book of God: To which purpose also the wise preacher, that sought to find out pleasant words, & an upright writing▪ even the words of truth, doth advertise us, 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 Geneva note doth well expound, it, obey the King, & keep the oath, that thou hast made for the same cause. Nae perturbatè a fancy eius abito: Cartwright in ●. 1. cap. 8 Eccl. For this is radix rebellionis, saith M. Cartwright, Siperturbatè animo ferri se patiantur: unde fit, ut plerique a subiectione debita deficiant, cum ira, indignatione, ambitione, lucri cupiditate, ab officio discedunt; This is the root of rebellion, if men will suffer themselves to be carried with discontentment, from the presence of the King: whence it cometh, that many men fall from due subjection, when they depart from their duty, either for anger, or indignation, or ambition, or desire of gain. The conclusion to the Treatiser & his friends. And thus far I have attended the Treatisers discourse, step by step & foot by foot, omitting, as I think, nothing that is material: and yielding, as I hope, just satisfaction to all them, that with peaceable minds, & unpartial affections shall be pleased to weigh his arguments, & my answers in indifferent balances: wherein if I have done any thing that may content (though in the least degree) you to whom this answer is addressed, I shall think this labour of mine, well bestowed: where unto, as I was first moved by them, which had authority to command me, so it was on my own part most willingly undertaken, with an earnest desire to ad if possibly I might, some drop of water to the quenching of that flame of discontentment that thus rageth amongst us: And I trust, I may the rather hope, that some good hereby may be effected, in that I came into this work, with a single mind, & without all eye or affection to any particular man, that might be imagined to be the writer of this Treatise of whom, I neither had, nor yet have, so much as the least inkling or suspicion. Only the matter and argument of this Treatise, drew on my pen: which (to speak my judgement & opinion of it) seemed unto me so warily set down, as that it might both stumble a weak and unsettled reader: and also add obstinacy, & stiffness, to minds already possessed with love, and liking of that opinion; though it have neither strength of argument, nor power of persuasion, to win any man unto that conceit, that either had judgement to discern the manifold fallacies and captions therein used, or stood before contrarily affected. That which I would now say is, to desire the Treatiser and his friends, that they would first reform themselves, and remove this stumbling block, which themselves, and not our Church hath laid before them, out of their own ways. If it be, as they are wont to say, against their consciences, them to reform the error of their own consciences, which no doubt, they may do, by informing their consciences aright, and laying true Science as the surest foundation of their consciences; If otherwise it be but only fear, lest they may seem by yielding to have over seen themselves, and having sometimes preached against this Ceremony, may be accused of levity & inconstancy in their doctrine, and so consequently bring on some discredit, unto their Ministry▪ Let them know, that all these are but human respects, and can no way be alleged, as just causes, why they should break brotherly amity and concord, and make a rent and dissension in the Church of God. Neither can these outward respects give any just excuse, to disobedience, & opposition, against the Magistrate, & laws established: which being of things indifferent, made for preservation 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, I do very heartily desire them to consider how great a mischief they have brought upon our Church: what breach of Christian charity among ourselves, which being all of one household, should be all of one mind; and what rejoicing and courage they have given to our common enemy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: How the Papists rejoice to see this jar amongst us: how Popery daily doth prevail, and take strength, & heart, by occasion of this breach. How much better were it, to turn these forces that are spent upon ourselves, against the common adversary? who (as lamentable experience hath taught us) maketh this strife of ours, a fit occasion and instrument to overthrow our common faith. As lately did appear most manifestly, when they endeavoured to cloak their barbarous, and inhuman cruelty, with the colour of your discontentment against the state Full of rage and malice is Satan now towards the last time of his hopes: he worketh every way, & layeth all his snares to deceive the simple: in some by pretenced zeal: in some by delusions and false impostures: in some by devilish plots and desperate designs: and generally in all sorts of men, by heaping disgraces and contempt upon the reverend Clergy, and Ministry of this Church as if they were the only lets, that hindered the full strengthening and perfecting of his kingdom. These things and many other grievous sins, & works of darkness, that blush not now to show themselves in the open day, could not thus swarm amongst us, as daily they do, if we all truly intended the same thing: if we could faithfully & unfeignedly give one an other the right hand of fellowship, and seriously do the Lords work with one consent. My hearty desire therefore, & earnest request is, that you with us, & we with you, would rightly consider these things: and knowing that our holy Ministry in preaching of Christ crucified, is the most forcible way, whereby it pleaseth God to weaken the strength & body of sin, give ourselves wholly to that work: That laying aside these questions of Ceremonies, that have now a long time troubled our peace, our contention hence forth may be against them, that differ from us in the substance of our saving faith: That so God may give a blessing to our labours, and we all with one mouth, and one mind may glorify God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. FINIS.