of Christ Popish they coulde not because neither was Popery yet heard of nor had the Papacy yet imbraced those superstitions Againe that a thing should be Popish or Antichristiā is not in the thing but in the minds of them that make it Popish and Antichristian For this you haue bin oftē told that no ceremony can be Popish Antichristian of it selfe Bucer de sacris vest ad Hopp Ritum aliquem Aaronicum esse vel Antichristianum in nullis haeret Dei creaturis in nulla veste in nulla figura in nullo colore aut vllo Dei opere sed in animo professione bonis Dei creaturis ad impias significationes abutentium Things are good saith he farther not only in their naturall effects as bread in the effect of feeding strengthning of the body wine in the effect of drinking heating but also in their diuers significations admonitions Quae scriptura docet diabolo vel malis hominibus eā factam esse potestatem vt abusu suo vllam queant Dei creaturam et bonam etiam significando et admonendo per se malam facere et impiam wherfore nothing can be said to belong to the Preisthood of Aron but that which is vsed to that superstition as if it were necessary and profitable of it selfe to saluation euen now after Christ is reueled or wherby some occasion to imbrace or retaine that superstition or to trouble the concord of Brethrē may be ministred So likwise no rite can be called Antichristian but that wherby some profession and communication with Antichrist may be shewed or may serue to that profession or communication And a litle after he hath these words very pertinent and effectuall to this purpose Eam enim libertatem c. For if any man wil say that this liberty of Ceremonies may be permitted to no Church of Christ he must needes yeeld to one or other of these inconueniences Ether that nothing is grāted to the Churches touching the Lords supper but that wheteof they haue the expresse commandement of Christ and then al the Churches must be condemned of wicked boldnes and presumtiō c. Or that there are not any Churches which the Lord doth so farre free from al suspition and abuse of his good creatures that al the good creatures of God are pure through true faith in his nāe to them that are pure yea euen in their signification which who soeuer shall say he therin must also denie Christ to be that Lord which he hath promised himselfe to be to al men that is their deliuerer from al vncleannes Or that wicked men by their abuse can so pollute the creatures of God which are good of themselus as they can serue no godly man to a godly vse which is manifestly against the testimony of the holy Ghost Rō 14.14 1. Cor. 8.4 et 9.20 1 Tim. 4.4 Or certainly that it is not lawfull for Christians to dispose of al things for admonition of their Creator and ours of his benefits towards vs and of our duties towards him which is repugnant to that that the holy Ghost teacheth every where concerning the knowledg and worship of God in al his works and doing al things in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ to the glory of the father This testimony of Mr. Bucer J haue therefore repeated at large because therein two things very effectual to this present questiō are delivered First that the church hath libertie and power to ordaine thinges indifferent in Gods service And secondly that no abuse of other men cā so pollute the creatures of God as that the pollution should ever after cleaue to the creatures as the Leprosie of Naaman did vnto Giezi but the corruptiō remaining only in the mindes of them that did defile the creatures they become againe pure to them that are pure that is to the faithful Whence it followeth necessarily that nothing can be iustly reputed Antichristian vnto any but vnto them that vse it to that end that Antichristian profession may be advanced by it or with that opiniō that they that are Antichristian doe ascribe vnto it whervpō it must as necessarily ensue that seeing we in the Church of England do not vse the signe of the Crosse in Baptism to advance the professiō of Antichrist nor with those opinions that Popish Antichristes doe ascribe vnto it therfore vnto vs it remaineth pure and cleane leaveth the Popery and Antichristianisme that it had sticking stil in the mindes and consciences of Popish Antichrists The foundation therfore of your observation being thus shaken we will now trie the iointes and sinewes of your argument whereby you would conclude this Ceremonie to haue bin Antichristian in the Ancients and therfore must bee also such in vs. Against the Ancients you argue thus That which was the beginning as it were of the whorish fornications and made way for the beast may well be takē for Popish and Antichristian But the abuses and opinion of vertue and efficacy that the Ancients had of the signe of the Crosse were the beginnings of the whorish fornications and made way for the beast Ergo The abuses and opinion of efficacy and vertue that the Ancients had of the signe of the Crosse may well bee taken for Popish and Antichristian To the Maior That which was the beginning c. It is true in thē in whō it was the beginning of whorish fornications and in whō it made way for the beast as in Simon Magus Elimas the Nicholaitans the false Apostls and the Heretiques al which no doubt gaue the beginnings to the whorish fornications and made way to the beast Jn the holy fathers that did not so it cānot be iustly reputed Popish or Antichristian as hath bin declared in the last words before To the Minor But the abuses c. Jt is false for the Antients did not abuse it neither had any opiniō of vertue and efficacy of it as is shewed in the 12. sect therfore your cōclusiō toucheth none but thē that were forrunners of Antichrist Jt cannot touch the Antient fathers that opposed themselues to the first working of the mystery resisted the Heresies that made way to the Beast Like vnto this is your reason that you make against our present vse That which hath since receiued farther impiety and autority from the Antichrist may iustly be taken for Popish Antichristian now But the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme in the Church of England hath since receiued farther impiety autority from the Antichrist Ergo The signe of the Crosse in Baptisme in the Church of England may iustly be taken for Popish and Antichristian now The Maior of this argument holdeth true as the Maior of the former did that is in them in whome it hath receiued farther impiety and authority frō Antichrist Jn others in whome it hath not receiued farther impiety it holdeth not The Minor is false for in the Church of England the Popish
Tertull. in Apol cap. 46. * Quid adeo simile Philosophus et Christianus Graeciae discipulus et caeli famae negotiator et vitae c yet in the commerce and intercourse of there knowledge as on the one side Quis poetarum quis Sophistarum qui non omnino de Prophetarum fonte potauerit vt facile credatur diuinam literaturam thesaurum fuisse posteriori cuique sapientiae so on the other side Aug. de doct christi li. 2. c. 40. * Nonne aspicimus quanto auro et argento et veste suffarcinatus exierit de Aegipto Cyprianus doctor suauissimus et Martyr beatissimus quanto Lactantius quanto Victorinus Optatus Hylarius and to omitt the rest quanto ipse qui hoc scribit Augustinus So that in those times Lactant. lib. 4. * Philosophia humana suis armis confecta obmutuit and there was not anie one of the auncient fathers that was not able to conuince prophane Poets Sophisters Philosophers out of their own principles and superstitions God in his wisdome soe giueing gifts to those his most worthie instruments Niceph. Cal. lib. 8. cap. 29. that they * Tanquam periti Musici gratum et iucundum decantantes carmē super vacaneas quoque percurrere plectro chordas potuerint et ornatus gratia supra eas quae ex vsu sunt alias etiam adijcere Secondly for the Leiturgies forme of diuine seruice in those times as we do willingly acknowledg al things to haue beene of far more simple and plaine obseruation then they came afterward vnto so it cannot be denied but that euen then also humane ordinances inventions were vsed in Gods seruice for what else shal wee cal and to what head shal we refer the Leiturgies of St. Iames vsed in the Church of Ierusalem of St. Basill vsed in the Church of Caesarea Cappad of St. Chrysostome vsed in the Church of Constantinople of St. Clement vsed in the Church of Rome and generally of all those other famous Leiturgies mentioned in the Ecclesiastical histories and recorded to haue been vsed in several Churches in the most flourishing state of the Primitiue Church what conceipt shal we haue of those zealous religious Christians that haue in al ages and in al Churches without any interruption so devoutly song said Athanasius and the Nicene Creede what of the heavenly dittie Te Deum compiled by St. Augustine and St. Ambrose and from them derived into al Churches what of the sacred hymne Trisagium vsed first in the Church of Constantinople afterward commended to the world by the councel of Calcedon what of so manie excellent hymnes verses Antiphonies Responsories Rogations and Letanies as we read to haue beene made by S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Hilarie S Ambrose S. Augustine Synesius Prudentius Gregorie the great Sedulius and divers others vsed continually in the Church And lastly to avoide infinite examples to this purpose what shal we thinke of the fourth Coūcel of Toledo Conc. Toleta 4. Canon 12. that doth iustifie the saying of praiers singing of hymnes made by men against such as woulde haue nothing vsed in the church but what is in the Canonical scriptures or hath beene receiued by the Apostles De consec dist◠1. ca. de hymnis Quia nonnulli hymni humano studio in laudem Dei atque Apostolorum Martyrum triumphos compositiesse noscūtur sicutij quos beatissimi Doctores Hylarius Ambrosius condiderunt quos tamen quidam specialiter reprobant pro to quod de scripturis sanctorum Canonum vel Apostolica traditione non existunt respuant ergo illum hymnum ab hominibus compositum quem in fine omnium Psalmorum dicimus gloria honor patri filio spiritus sancto c. Similiter totum illud quod sequitur post Angelicum hymnum gloria in excelsis Deo c. quod tamen Ecclesiastici Doctores composuerūt c. I haue the more willingly repeated the most part of the Canon because it so fitly meeteth with the thwart humor of certaine men of our time who scoffingly and in contempt cal those godly songs made by men which are ioined in the same volume with our singing Psalmes Ballads Jigges and such like names and can abide nothing but the Geneua Psalmes as they cal them to be sunge in our Christian congregations As if they certainely were Gods word it selfe not rather expositions and paraphrases made by men Thirdly for the rites and ceremonies of those times it must be remēbred that first for a lōg space in the church they were Iudaical either because mē borne brought vp in the Iewish Paedagogie Beza epist 8. knewe not what belonged vnto Christian liberty or else because many worthy and famous men in those daies were of opinion that all the Iewish ceremonies could not suddenly be abrogated without the great offence scādal of the weaker sort Of which opinion it seemes St. Augustine also was who oftentimes praiseth and commendeth this saying Iudaicā Synagogam cum honore fuisse sepeliendam Secondly it is to be observed that they were divers sundrie in divers Churches Socrat l. 5. c. 21. Euseb hist Eccles lib. 5. c. 23. according to that saying of Socrates Omnes Ecclesiarum ritu qui in singulis vrbibus regionibusque vsurpantur scriptis mandare vt 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 remembred that they were liberae observationis no one Church prescribing to another nor condēning another for diversity of ceremonies but every one following their owne customes and vsing that freedome that is agreeable to christian liberty This point is fully proued by many particulars in the place formerly alleadged out of Socrates most plainely delivered vnto vs not only in the example of St. Ambrose Cum Romam venio ieiuno Sabbato cum hic Mediolani sum non ieiuno Aug. ep 118. ad Ianuarium but also by his advise and councell commended to S. Augustine Sic etiam tu ad quā forte Ecclesiam veneris eius morem serua si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo nec quenquam tibi Which advise and councel of S. Ambrose as often as St. Augustine thought vpon he alwaies embraced as an oracle from heaven because hee had often found and with much griefe lamented that many weake brethren were troubled by the contentious obstinacy and supersticious feare of some men who in those matters which cannot certainly be resolued vpon neither by the authority of the scriptures nor by the traditiō of the vniuersal church became so troublesome that they thought well of nothing but what they did them selues Either because they had some sleight reason for there opinions or because
commending of Tertullians interpretation of this place of Iohn worthely it is approved and commended as most fit and agreeable therevnto Tertullian never meant those words against the sign of the Crosse in Baptisme of which he alwaies speaketh most honorably neither doth the Church of England in that Homilie otherwise apply his testimony then to the detestation both of the service or worshipping and also of the very shapes and likenes of the Images or Idols them selues his wordes there are effigies imago as the same Homily doth well obserue Our Crosse is neither of them both Treatise 3. Sect. And this point is further strengthened by the seconde commandement which forbiddeth not only to worship but euen to make an Image or any similitude whatsoever to wit ad cultū or for religious vse as according to the scripture the best interpreters partly against Images in Churches partly on the words of the precept do most naturally expoūd it For surely if Idolatry it selfe as a most execrable thing be forbidden then all occasions meanes leading thervnto are likewise prohibited what stronger provocation to that spiritual whoredome thē erecting Images in the place of Gods worship Plus enim vt rectè Augustinus in Psalm 113. valent simulacra ad curuandam infeliccm animam quòd os habent nares habent manus habent pedes habent quà m ad corrigendam quòd non loquentur nō videbunt non audient non odorabunt non tractabunt nō ambulabunt And therefore without doubt the meaning of the commandement is to binde the Church from all such snares allurements to sin And therfore doth Augustine in quaest super Leu. q. 68. wel conclude from this cōmandement that such making of an Idoll can never be iust or lawfull Now if no similitude at all be tollerable in Gods service then much lesse any that hath beene and is worshipped Idolatrouslie Tertullian against the Gnosticks accompted them Idolaters not only which worshipped but those also vvhich made and retained Images nempe ad cultum or for holie vse and in his booke de Idololatria hee vehemently reproveth the very makers of Images though they did not themselues worship thē which sheweth in what execration the Primitiue Churche held any religious vse of an Idoll The like we may finde in Epiphanius ad Johannem Episcopum Hierosol where he reporteth that finding an Image of Christ or some Saint hanging at a Church dore he rent it in peeces avouching that to hange a picture in the Church of Christ was contra autoritatem scripturarum contra religionem Christianam contrary to the authority of the scriptures and the Christian Religion Frō hence I conclude that if the godly fathers were so vehemēt against the erecting of the Images of Christ of Saints euen at that time before any worship was giuen vnto them Much more would they withstand it now after men haue made Idolls of them And if they would not suffer an Idoll so much as in the place of Gods worship would they endure themselues to vse such an Idoll as the Crosse in the seruice and sacramentes of God Their zeale against that spirituall fornication would neuer permitt them so highly to honor such an execrable thing neither was their zeale herein without ground of knowledge for the spirit of God in Psal 115.8 speaking of Idolls They saith he that make them are like vnto them and so are all they that trust in them VVhere a plaine difference is made betwene makers and worshippers of Idolls and both condemned as Cursed transgressors of the Law Shall any then make the Idoll of the Crosse that Religionis causa and yet be innocent Questionlesse by Dauids example we must make no mētion that is keep no honorable memory of an Idoll therfore without doubt not giue it so much honor as to vse it or the memoriall therof in the house of God in his holy worship Isa 50.22 but as Isai saith we must pollute the reliques the very couering and ornament of the Idoll and cast thē away as a menstruous cloth say vnto it get thee hence Answere The Treatiser confirmes his explanation of the sentence of St. Iohn by the second Commandement by the testimonies of S. Augustine Tertulliā Epiphanius thervnto applied Wherin giuing way to his allegatiōs because they are only against Jdolatry and making of Jmages to worship them J only marke his scapes and overreachings wherof the first is in these words Ad cultum or for Religious vse where J note that how soeuer in words he would faine make Cultus and religious vse differēt things that so he might seeme to follow his proposed diuision de cultu et vsu yet in his proofes he makes them both one A manifest argument that in all this discourse he neuer commeth nere our vse of the Crosse in Baptisme which is so farre from Cultus and religious vse as he vnderstands it that we neither worship it nor suppose any religon to be in it as J said even now A second scape of his is in this conditionall Collection vpon the second Commandement and testiōnies of St. Augustine If no similitude at all be tolerable in Gods seruice then much lesse any that hath bin and is worshiped Idolatrously For wheras the second Commandement all his proofes there vpon run mainly against Cultus or religious vse which to him are both one he cānot thēce cōclude that therfore the vse of some similitudes in a religious action without any worship ascribed vnto them or opinion of religion reposed in them is not tollerable For by this generall restraint beyond the nature of his proofes he may as well exclude the vse of Sacramēts out of Gods seruice which certainly are some kind of similitudes of those things which they doe represent according to that of St. Augustine Aug. ep 23. ad Bonifacium Si sacramēta quandam similitudinem earū rerum quarum sunt sacramenta non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent Againe his illation and inference vpon this supposition is likewise false for though that were true yet some thing that hath bin heretofore Idolatrously worshiped may lawfully be tollerated now and some thing that even now is Idolatrously worshiped which yet is not granted of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme as shall hereafter appeare may be lawfully tollerated in some other that are free from all conceite of Jdolatrie as formerly hath bin declared Thirdly hee over-reacheth in his collection vpon the words of Tertullian and Epiphanius where hee asketh woulde they endure themselues to vse such an Jdoll as the Crosse in the service and sacraments of God We answer they would such an Jdoll as our Crosse is And we are perswaded that both they St. Augustine too would like it wel enough When they shoulde perceiue that without opinion of superstition or efficacie ascribed vnto it it were reclaimed to the very same symbolicall or ceremoniall vse it
is made partaker of the diuine nature which no doubt doth assist them euen in the lawes also and constitutions which are made for Order Decency in the Church Concerning your first proofe point of difference when you say That which God hath commanded is necessary that which man ordained is indifferent J grant that which God hath commanded is indeed necessarie for the matter Beza ep 2. circa med and necessarie for the forme wherein yet looke vpon the second Epistle of Mr. Beza How far it is necessarie to be done as he hath commanded necessary to be reclaimed from all abuses that it hath bin subiect vnto and necessary to be restored to his first and true vse But before we grant you your second proposition That which man hath ordained is indifferent we must be instructed what you meane by this worde indifferent for if you vnderstand the things them selues as they are of themselues we grant that the Church caÌ„not make a thing indifferent to be of it selfe other then a thing indifferent but if you vnderstand the same things as they are for vse lawfully commanded or forbidden by the authority of the Church then we must tel you that it is not freely in your owne power and liberty whether you will vse them or not vse them accordingly for then they cease to be altogether indifferent beginn to become some way necessary which that you may the rather beleeue J will direct you to Mr. Bezaes 24. Epistle where you may learne it Bezae ep 24. ad 5. 6. 7. 8. Res alioqui per se mediae saith he mutant quodammodo naturam cum aliquo legitimo mandato vel praecipiuntur vel prohibentur quia neque contra iustum praeceptum omitti possunt si praecipiantur neque contra interdictum fieri si prohibeantur Things otherwise of them selues indifferent change their nature after a sort when they are either comaÌ„nded or forbidden by anie lawfull authority because they can neither be omitted contrary to the iust precept if they be commanded nor done contrary to the prohibition if they be forbidden And a litle after Jbid. m 9. Nam et si conscientias proprÃe solus Deus ligat tamen quatenus Ecclesia ordinis decori adeóque aedificationis rationem habens leges aliquas de rebus medijs ritè condit eiusmodi leges pijs omnibus sunt obseruandae â—atenus coÌ„scientias ligant vt nemo sciens prudens rebellandi animo possit absâ— peccato vel facere quae ita prohibentur vel omittere quae sic praecipiuntur For though God only doth properly bind the consciences yet so farr forth as the Church hauing regard of order decency and aedification maketh rightly any lawes coÌ„cerning things indifferent those lawes are to be obserued by al godly men and so far bind the consciences that no man wittingly and willingly with a purpose of rebelling may without sinne either doe those things which are so forbidden or omitt those things which are so commanded I pray you Mr Treatiser marke diligently the words conscientias ligant or nemo sciens prudens rebellandi animo possit absque peccato for you knowe how many of your brethren are forgetfull of this instruction without sinne say you what sinne J pray you Hemmingius in Syurag cap. de adiaphonuÌ„ 9 J referre you for answere to an other Qui violat Ecclesiasticam politiam peccat multis modis primum enim reus fit violati ordinis in Ecclesia deinde authoritatem Magistratus contemnit tuÌ„ infirmorum conscientias vulnerat postremò nocet exemplo charitatem erga fratres violat He that breakes the Ecclesiasticall Policie sinneth many waies first hee is guilty of breaking the orders of the Church secondly he contemneth the authority of the Magistrates thirdly hee woundeth the consciences of the weake and lastly he hurteth by example violateth the law of Charitie Againe whereas speaking of things necessary in your margent you giue vs to vnderstaÌ„d that of this nature are Churches Pulpits c. J demand of what nature meane you of the same nature that the bread in the supper is for so the purport of your answer seemeth to imply that being only vrged in the obiectioÌ„ Jf this be your meaning you are very much mistaken for though Churches and Pulpits are very necessary in deed in their kinde yet their necessity is not of that nature that the bread in the supper is of For the bread in the supper is simply and absolutely necessary insomuch that if there be no bread there is no Sacrament but Churches and Pulpits are only necessarie for conveniency Tert. Apol. c. 2. and decency for I hope those Caetus antelucani ad canendum Christo Deo meetings in the morning to sing to Christ and God as Tertullian speaketh frequented by the Christians in the time of persecutioÌ„ Just Mart. Apol 2. non lodge à fine were grateful vnto God though not done in Churches and those verba praepositi exhortatoria ad imitationeÌ„ tam honestarum rerum words of the Provost wherewith he exhorted to the imitation of so honest things vvhich Iustine Martyr mentioneth may be esteemed good sermons though not deliuered out of Pulpits To conclude this point if Churches be of the same nature for necessity that the bread in the supper is how hath it of late yeares come to passe that many of your brotherhoode in the freedome of Christian religion haue made choice of private houses for their sermons rather then of Churches of the end of a table in a Gentlemans parlour rather then of a Pulpit These your practises haue made proofe vnto the world that Churches and Pulpits howsoever necessary are not yet so necessary even in your owne opinion as the bread in the supper nor so greatly respected by you as here you would make vs now beleeue Your second point of difference betweene things coÌ„manded by God and ordained by man is No abuse can alter the nature of that which God hath coÌ„manded but that which man hath ordained may by abuse become vnlawful as the retaining the brasen SerpeÌ„t which you note in the margent was no where commanded and therefore Hezechia did worthily breake it not seeking to redresse the abuse of it In the first of these propositions No abuse can alter the nature of that which God hath commanded I confesse J do rather guesse then wel vnderstand what you meane by altering of the nature J suppose your meaning to be this viz. that no abuse fastened by Papists vpon the bread in the supper can so alter the right vse thereof but that by the Orthodox and right beleevers it may againe be reduced to his first integrity we concur with you in this opinion thinke the very same in the signe of the Crosse No say you not so because that which maÌ„ hath ordained may by abuse become vnlawfull this we confesse also but adde that by right vse it may
them the right vse or by Lawes prohibiting the Jdolatry or by punishments either penall or capitall vpon the transgressors of the lawes established or by removing the thing if it be a materiall thing as this was out of the places of resort into some secluse place vvhere the people might neither come at it nor see it and where without offence it might still be kept for a monument of Gods mercy or lastly if nothing else wil serue by vtter abolishing and destroying the thing Nowe because of all these waies hee made choice of that which he iudged and which was indeed the most expedite and ready way and withal the surest that Idolatry might never be cōmitted to it againe Aug. de civit Dei lib. 10. c. 8. Religiosâ potestate Deo serviens cum magna pietatis laude contrivit doing God service with his religious authority he brake it and is worthily commended for his piety If it had seemed good in his iudgement to haue taken some of the other courses as it is likely David Asa Iehosophat and other good kings of Iuda before him did his cōmendations as theirs had bin no whit lesse though his reformatiō had neither bin so expedite nor so sure for time to come for which cause also that great famous execution which K. Henrie the eight did vpon the Monestaries of this Land is likewise commended yet manie both zealous and religious professors could rather haue wished that so many famous Monuments erected sometime to the service of God but then abused by the wicked and sinfull inhabitants might stil haue retained the end and punishment haue lighted only on the offenders Yea but you will say where the abuses could not otherwise be redressed but had it remained stil vnbroken it would stil haue bin a stumbling blocke and occasion of Idolatry there the readiest and surest way was to be takē J grant where the abuse could not otherwise be redressed as in the brasen Serpent c. but where the abuse may otherwise be redressed as in the signe of the Crosse there destruction vtter subuersion is not alwaies the best cure And herein plainely is the difference betweene the brasen Serpent and the Crosse Hezechiah saw the abuse of the Serpent 2 King 18.4 otherwise incureable for vnto those daies saith the scripture the children of Jsrael did burne incense vnto it vnto those daies importeth a long time before and an inevitable abuse that had long continued wherein as we are in al good reason to conceiue the former godly kings David Asa and Iehosophat who are greatly commēded for their reformations had no doubt made triall of al other meanes and yet experience made proofe that by al those it could not be redressed In which case Hezechiahs course was necessary and hoc supposito the rule of Pope Stephen holdeth Dist 63. cap. Quia Sancta Per hoc magna autoritas ista est habenda in Ecclesia vt si no anulli ex praedecessoribus maioribus nostris fecerunt aliqua quae illo tempore potuerunt esse sine culpa posteà vertuntur in errorē superstitionem sine tarditate aliqua cum magna autoritate à posteris destruantur For this cause this authority is to be esteemed great in the Church that if some of our predecessors ancestors haue done somthings which at that time might be without fault and afterwards are turned into error and superstition they may be destroied by posteritie without al lingring and with great authority Our Church contrarywise perceiveth by the fruitfull experience now of almost fifty yeares that the abuse of the cōsignatiō of the Crosse in Baptisme is cureable where obedient and conformable Teachers instruct the people a right it seemeth further that this abuse wold haue bin much more redressed before these daies had not the Treatiser and his complices hindered the worke by their vntrue slanders and accusations both of our Church as retaining the reliques of Popery and of the thing as if it were the marke of the beast framed in the forge of Antichrist which they know to haue bin a decent Ceremony vsed in the purest age and by the greatest pillars of the Church long before any shew of Antichrist did appear Againe J answere that it is by the Magistrates to bee considered First wherin the abuse doth more principally reside whether in the persons that do abuse the thing or in the thing that is abused For reason would generally that as by the skilfull Physitian cures are applied to those parts that are most affected so by the discreet Magistrate the redresse should be made there where the abuse principally consisteth Jf in the persons the easines or difficulty of reforming them is diligently to be respected Jf in the thing that is abused the Magistrate is likewise to consider of what nature the thing is If evill of his owne nature and first institution as Lupanaria the Stews and such like places be then without al questiō their best redresse is their vtter subversion and destruction Jf good of his owne nature first institution but abused by mē as both the brasen Serpent the sign of the Crosse were Then the consideratiō is whether the thing thus abused be such as may wel be spared or such as cannot wel bee spared Jf so then it is apparantly the readier and easier way to take away the thing If otherwise then the wisdō of the Magistrate wil direct him rather to take away the abuse then destroy the thing These cōsiderations in the matter of the brasen Serpēt made good king Hezechiah to finde that the brasen Serpēt was for one peculiar time occasion that it had long before his daies performed that service for which it was erected that it belonged not to the people of his time nor had no such cure as before to effect That though the Serpent were a type of the Messiah yet there remained a memory of it in the bookes of Moses that would serue that turne though this were taken away Lastly that it was all one these things considered whether it were preserved still or vtterly abolished vpon which grounds he proceeded to that so much cōmended execution brake it in peeces and called it Nehushtan The same deliberations likewise in our reformers in the matter of the Crosse made them to find that the consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme was not more peculiar to the times of the Primitiue Church then to ours That it had not performed all that service for the which it was first instituted That it is an admonisher as necessary now against Atheists Mockers and Blasphemers as it was at the first against heathen and Pagan Idolators That if it were taken away the Church of Rome might iustly accuse vs of abrogating an harmelesse innocent institution Non temere nec subinde nec levibus de causis ad novationem est decurrē dum Calv. Inst lib 4 cap.
tenete c. That we choose their good things 1. Thess 1. 21. and avoid the cōtrary according to the Apostles saying Try al things keepe that which is good For they which are carried away either with too much loue or with too much hatred of him by the distemper of their stomacke seeme vnto me to be vnder that curse of the Prophet woe be vnto them that call good euill and evil good Isai 5.20 that make sower sweete and sweete sower But Cyprian Augustine Chrysostome and others did consecrate the Elements you say with the signe of the Crosse which we doe not They did indeed and in those times they did it wel Jf we should now doe the like we could not choose but doe very ill That they did wel in so doing J am the rather perswaded for my part For J am not willing to conceiue any thing amisse of those blessed and excellent instruments of Gods glory that by any reasonable construction of their words may be salued because they did it without offence in respect of others and without opinion of vertue ascribed to the signe of the Crosse if you respect their owne iudgments without offence to others for at that time the Jnstitutiō of that Ceremony the reasons of the Jnstitution were so wel knowne vnto al men that no man could be ignorant of them nor take offence at them without opinion of vertue in the signe in their owne iudgments Because that consecration or sanctification which they attributed to the signe of the Crosse was rather in name so called then any hallowing indeed and rather an outward declaration that the Elements were consecrated then any cause of their consecration And that this was their conceit of the signe of the Crosse is most manifestly apparant by those words of St. Augustine Aug. de peccat meritis remiss lib. 2. c. 26. Sanctificatio Cathechumeni si non fuerit baptizatus non sibi valet ad intrandū regnum coelorū aut ad remissionē peccatorū Againe they did not ascribe that consecratiō of the elements how little soever they thought it to be vnto the sign of the Crosse which they made vppon it but alwaies with the signe ioined somthing els So the same St. Augustine in that place whē he saith Cathechumenos secundum quendam modum suū puto consecrarï per signum Christi doth not rest there say only Cyp. de passion dom cap. 11. Sect. 12. Signū Christi but ioineth thereunto et orationem manus impositionis and so St. Cyprian whose testimony you cite afterwards saith indeed Operationis autoritas in figura crucis omnibus sacramentis largitur effectum but withal he addeth which you thought wisdome to suppresse as not making for your purpose cuncta peragat Nomen quod omnibus nominibus eminet a sacramentorum vicarijs invocatum But of this we shal say more in the 12. section That we should doe very ill if we should vse this Ceremony now these reasons induce me to cōceiue First The people are now more prone to error and misconceit then they were in those times Secōdly some things and among others this were more fit for those times then for these Goulart in sy prian Epist 56. ad Thibaritan Distinguenda sunt tempora saith Goulartius and before him St. Augustine and then it wil easily appear that that may be done wel at one time which cannot be done wel at another Aug. epist 5. ad Marcellinum Mutat â quippe temporis causa quod rectè ante factum fuerit ita mutari vera ratio plerumque flagitat vt cum aliqui dicant non recte fieri simutetur contra veritas clamet rectè non fieri nisi muteturiquia vtrumque tum erit rectum sierit pro temporū varietate diuersum As in a child many things are permited by the Parents which wil not be when he is come to riper yeares So in that infancy and innocency of the Church many things might wel be done by the Auntients which cannot be wel done by vs now in the māhood or rather old age of the Church And lawful it was for them while Christianity was yet but greene to be led and brought on by those outward rudiments which we haue no neede of now If you aske why these reasons should not aswel make against the signing of the Childe in the forehead as against the signing of the Elements The answere is easie first the danger is not so great nor so remedilesse in the one as in the other Secondly the ends are different The signing of the Childs forhead was then and is now for admonition The signing of the Elements was thē dangerous and would now be desperat for consecration if we should imbrace it And therfore me thinks you should rather commend the wisdom of our Church which out of the nūber of those Ceremonies which were troublesome to good consciences and burdensome to the Church as that learned Bishop speaketh Iuell in Apolog. hath culled those which were harmelesse then any way dislike vs for not retaining all those ceremonies of this signe which though vsed by the Ancients might proue scandalous to the weaker sort For answere to the Second That we doe that which the Ancients did not for they did not crosse the childes forehead at all but referred that vnto the Bishops confirmation I make no doubt but the Treatiser by the Ancients that he speaketh of entēdeth those especially that were nearest vnto the Apostles times that flourished within the compasse of the first three hundred yeares vvhich by al men is reputed the purest age as it were the maidenhead and virginity of the Church For he cannot be ignorant that in the ages that succeeded after them this custome was most ordinary frequent in all Churches This supposed I answere First That either the Treatiser is deceived or the whole Christiā world for so many ages togither hath bin very greatly overseene that ever since the first times even from such as lived with the Apostles thēselues haue receaved this consignatiō of the childs forehead in Baptisme as one of the most ancient Ceremonies of christianity This is acknowledged not only by our best late writers whose speeches to that purpose I haue reported before in the 88. and 89. pages but also by the Ancients out of whō they learned it whose authorities come now to be considered So that if the Treatiser can reforme this common errour of so many learned men and of so long continuance he shal do no doubt a good work a great service to the Church of Christ This hee cannot bring about except hee either deny the authorities of the Ancients or giue their words some other interpretation then they doe apparantly signifie al men hitherto haue made of them Dionysius lib. Eccles Hierar cap. 4. 5. Dionisius commonly called Areopagita whether truly or falsly J wil not discusse but certainly a very
acknowledg the signing in confirmation to be very auntient am glad to heare you argue for the antiquity of that which your admonitiō to the Parliament so much extenuateth calling it superstitious not agreeing to the word of God Popish and peeuish full of toies degenerating frō the first institution I am glad J say to hear you plead the antiquity of that Ceremony though it be with opposition to an auntienter but yet J nether acknowledg confirmation so auntient as Baptisme Nor the signing of confirmation so auntient as the signing of Baptisme Because you thought wee woulde not beleeue this strange speech of yours vpon your bare word without proofe you note vnto vs in your margent Tertull. de Baptismo cap. 7. et 8. Euseb l. 6. c. 42. Innocent 1. ep ad Decentium num 3. Rabanus Maurus de institutione Clericorū ca. 30. Durand Rational divin li. 1 cap. de consecrat You might haue done wel to haue reported their words too and no doubt you would haue done it had they been so pregnant for your purpose as you make shew Tertull. de baptis cap. 9. Tertullian in that place confesseth indeede that the signe was vsed in confirmatiō but neither there nor in any other place doth he deny it of Baptism Your second authority sheweth that Novatus the Hereticke after his Baptisme Euseb li. 6 c. 42 reliqua consecutus non est post morbum quae iuxta Ecclesiae canonem consequi debebat obsignationem videlicet ab Episcopo But how doth this proue that the sign was not vsed in his Baptisme The like may be said to your testimony out of Innocentius his words indeede are Innocent ad De cent ep 1. tom 1 coacil De consignandis Infantibus manifestū est nō ab alio quā Episcopo fieri licere But he speaketh this of confirmatiō only which he there proveth must be ministred by the Bishop alone he maketh no mention of Baptism at al. Your other two authorities out of Rabanus and Durandus speake somewhat more plainly directly to your purpose for the first saith signatur baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in capitis summitate per pontificem vero in fronte c. Ruban Maurus de Jnstitut clerico lib 1. c. 30. Durand ration divin lib. 1. cap de consecrat itā lib 6. cap. 83. The second saith Christiani bis ante Baptismū inunguntur oleo benedicto primò in pectore deinde inter scapulas bis post Baptismum primò in vertice deinde per Episcopum in fronte making a distinction of the places To these I answere First That they make a distinction of the place where this signe was made in Baptisme on the crowne in cōfirmation on the forehead But they make no distinction of the signe for they say that the childe in both was signed whereas your proofe should be that the childe was not signed in Baptisme Secondly J say that this difference of the vpper parte of the head and the forehead is a nice difference and might well haue bin the devise of latter times Especiallie seeing Durandus saith Primaetres vnctiones introductae sunt potius vsu quam per aliquā scripturā Thirdly J answer that in Durands time the childe in Baptism was not signed in the crown only but in the forehead too For so saith Durandus your owne author Durand lib 6. ration cap. 83. Sextum donum Baptismi est in vertice id est in summitate capitis super cerebrū cū chrismate facta perunctio septimū est in fronte chrismatio and that you may be sure that this in fronte chrismatio was with the signe of the Crosse he tels you that omnia chrismata cum crucis figurâ perficiuntur Jbid. cap. 84. Lastly J oppose to those late writers the authorities of the Ancients before rehearsed and withall the iudgement and liberty of our Church which rather chose to follow the vniforme simplicity of the Ancients then the divers multiplicitie of these latter writers whom I suppose you doe not quote especially Durandus for any liking you haue of them or credit you yeeld to their authorities But our crossing of the Infants forehead and not the Element of Baptisme is a meere novelty of some 600. yeares standing c. Our crossing of the Infants forehead not the Element is no noveltie as hath bin already shewed Your speech doth soūd as if if we did crosse both the forhead the element then it were no novelty And this is true too For crossing of the element also is ancient though not so ancient as the crossing of the forehead alone As for your marginal note of some 600. yeares standing it is so manifest an vntruth as I marvaile you could be perswaded to set it downe Secondly your second proofe is out of Tertullian Neither wil that place of Tertullian de resurrect carnis Cap. 8. proue the contrary Caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur caro vngitur vt anima consecretur caro signatur vt anima muniatur caro manus impositione adumbratur vt anima spiritu illuminetur caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur Hēce you gather that though indeed he mention the signing of the faithfull yet it may bee as well referred to confirmation as to Baptisme True And yet more properly to Baptism thē to confirmatiō For in these words alluding as you say to diverse Ceremonies of the Christians it is far more likely as any man that is acquainted with his articulate māner of writing wil thinke that he endevoured rather equally to fit each severall clause to his severall Ceremonie then to apply any one to two which must needes follow vpon your interpretation Thirdly your third proofe is a probabili It is more then probable say you that the signe of the Crosse was not yet vsed c. The probability you speake of is none at al. Concerning Iustine Martyr in his second Apologie to Antoninus it was not necessary that he should there mētion any thing more then those things which did belōg to the substance of Baptisme For his purpose was to be breife and not to propose euery Ceremony of Christianity but to mention only their praiers and the things essentiall in the Sacrament And therfore no marvaile if he did omit this Ceremony here especially seeing he doth remember it else where as hath bin shewed euen in this Apologie he saith before that nothing was done without this figure of the Crosse Concerning Tertullian not remembring it in the places you cite who you say would not haue omitted it if it had bin then vsed especially in that very place where he speaketh of the Crosse as vsed out of Baptisme J answere that euen that might be sufficient reason why he omitted it when he spake of Baptisme Because he that saith omnem progressum omnem promotum and quacunque nos conversatio exercet c. doth
abuses of the Crosse haue receiued neither further impiety nor authority but contrariwise are al remoued and the first sincere vse of the Antients is retained For we vse this signe of the Crosse in truth to no other purpose theÌ„ we vse the name or worde Crosse that is only for signification and admonition and seeing there is no other difference betweene theÌ„ but what the word soundeth vnto the eare that the signe representeth vnto the eie why should there be more fault founde with the one theÌ„ with the other or why should our vsing of more outward meanes for helping our infirmities in remembring Christs passion be misliked Seeing in al other matters the more meanes we vse to helpe our weakenes the better we reckon of theÌ„ Beza in defen reprehens Sebast Castell Ex quo nostrae redemptionis pretium in cruce pependit illud ipsum crucis vocabulum an tea ignominiosissimum nobis Christianis factum est honorificentissimum Jf the word Crosse be so honourable because our Saviour somtimes hunge vpon the Crosse why should the signe of the same thing be so daungerous and pernitious And therefore your conclusion no way hurteth the Church of England but only in the vniust caluÌ„niation that it laieth vpon it and in it vpon the Ancients whose reputation and integrity touching the Crosse standing good as for any thing you can say against it it alwaies wil it is not possible for you to fasten the Popish abuses and whorish fornications of the Romish Antichrist vpon our Church The exhortation wherewith you conclude this your Treatise is good in Thesi vnto al men even in this particuler Hypothesis of the Crosse in Baptisme to theÌ„ that are intangled defiled with Popish conceipts superstitions But vnto vs that are no waies partakers of those corruptions you might very wel haue forborne it The feare of a curse least being partakers of the Romish Antichrists sins you should also receiue of her plagues keeps you you say from his superstitious Idolatries The feare of a curse ought no doubt to be a great bridle to restraine all men from doing evil But we invite you not to be partakers of the Romish Antichrists sinnes but only of our society in our innocent and harmlesse Christian Ceremonies Wherin if you fear a curse you fear where no cause of feare is If you fear a curse indeed as you pretend you shall do wel to translate this feare of yours froÌ„ the harmlesse vse of the Crosse wherein either there is no danger at all as we are perswaded or no certaine danger which your selues cannot proue vnto the most certaine vndoubted daÌ„ger of disobedience whervnto without al peraduenture there is due a fearfull and seuere curse as we are taught by the exampls of Corah Numb 16.1 Dathan and Abiram in the booke of God To which purpose also the wise preacher that sought to find out pleasant words an vpright writing euen the words of truth doth aduertise vs Eccle. 8.2 namely to take heed to the mouth of the King to the word of the oath of God that is as the Geneua note doth well expound it obey the King keepe the oath that thou hast made for the same cause Nae perturbatè a facie eius abito Cartwright in â— 1. cap. 8 Eccl. For this is radix rebellionis saith M. Cartwright Siperturbatè animo ferri se patiaÌ„tur vnde fit vt plerique a subiectione debita deficiant cum ira indignatione ambitione lucri cupiditate ab officio discedunt This is the roote of rebellion if men will suffer themselus to be caried with discontentment from the presence of the King whence it commeth that many men fall from due subiection when they depart from their duty either for anger or indignation or ambition or desier of gaine The conclusion to the Treatiser his friends And thus far J haue atteÌ„ded the Treatisers discours step by step foot by foot omitting as J think nothing that is materiall and yeelding as J hope iust satisfaction to al them that with peaceable minds vnpartiall affectioÌ„s shall be pleased to weigh his arguments my answeres in indifferent ballances wherin if J haue done any thing that may content though in the least degree you to whom this answere is addressed J shal thinke this labour of mine wel bestowed where vnto as J was first moued by them which had autority to command me so it was on my owne part most willingly vndertaken with an ernest desire to ad if possibly J might some drop of water to the quenching of that flame of discontentment that thus rageth amoÌ„gst vs And J trust J may the rather hope that some good hereby may be effected in that J came into this worke with a single mind without al eie or affection to any particular man that might be imagined to be the writer of this Treatise of whom J neither had nor yet haue so much as the least inckling or suspition Only the matter and argument of this Treatise drew on my pen which to speake my iudgment opinioÌ„ of it seemed vnto me so warily set down as that it might both stumble a weake and vnsetled reader and also add obstinacy stiffnes to minds already possessed with loue and liking of that opinion though it haue neither strength of argument nor power of persuasion to winn any man vnto that conceite that either had iudgment to descerne the manifold fallacies and captions therein vsed or stood before contrarily affected That which J would now say is to desier the Treatiser and his frends that they would first reforme themselues and remoue this stumbling block which themselues and not our Church hath laid before them out of their owne waies If it be as they are wont to say against their consciences theÌ„ to reforme the error of their owne consciences which no doubt they may doe by informing their consciences aright and laying true Science as the surest foundation of their consciences If otherwise it be but only feare least they may seeme by yeelding to haue ouer seene them selues and hauing soÌ„times preched against this Ceremony may be accused of leuity inconstancy in their doctrine and so consequently bring on some discredit vnto their Ministry Let theÌ„ know that al these are but humane respects and can no way be alleadged as iust causes why they should break brotherly amity and concord and make a rent and dissentioÌ„ in the Church of God Neither can these outward respects giue any iust excuse to disobedience opposition agaâ—nst the Magistrat laws established which being of things indifferent made for preseruation of order decency in the Church bind their consciences and that resistance that is made against them is made against the ordinance of God Secondly J doe very hartily desire them to consider howe great a mischiefe they haue brought vpon our Church what breach of Christian charity among our selues which being al of one houshold should bee all of one minde and what reioycing and courage they haue given to our common enemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How the Papists reioice to see this iar amongst vs how Popery dayly doth prevaile and take strength hart by occasion of this breach How much better were it to turne these forces that are spent vpon our selues against the commoÌ„ adversary who as lamentable experience hath taught vs maketh this strife of ours a fit occasion and instrument to overthrow our common faith As lately did appeare most manifestly when they endevored to cloake their barbarous and inhumane cruelty with the colour of your discoÌ„teÌ„tmeÌ„t against the state Ful of rage and malice is Satan now towards the last time of his hopes he worketh every way laieth al his snares to deceiue the simple in some by pretensed zeale in some by delusions and false impostures in some by divellish plots and desperate designes and generally in all sorts of men by heaping disgraces and contempt vpon the reverende Cleargie and Ministry of this Church as if they were the only lets that hindered the full strengthning and perfecting of his kingdome These things and many other grievous sins works of darknes that blush not now to shew themselues in the open day could not thus swarme amongst vs as daylie they doe if we all truely intended the same thing if vvee could faithfully vnfainedly giue one an other the right hand of fellowship and seriously doe the Lords worke with one consent My hartie desire therefore earnest request is that you with vs we with you would rightlie consider these things and knowing that our holy Ministry in preaching of Christ crucified is the most forcible waie wherby it pleaseth God to weaken the strength bodie of sin giue our selues wholie to that worke That laying aside these questions of Ceremonies that haue now a long time troubled our peace our contentioÌ„ heÌ„ce forth may be against them that differ from vs in the substaunce of our saving faith That so God may giue a blessing to our labours and wee all with one mouth and one minde may glorifie God the Father of our Lorde Jesus Christ FINIS