it may iustly be reputed Popish Antichristian though it were before those times wherein Popery and Antichrist were hatched First we doe not thinke that Antiquity alone without reason and truth is cause sufficient why wee shoulde retaine a Ceremony Yet it may giue vs good cause to examine the reasons that moved the fathers to vse it and not without iust cause rashly to abrogate and disanull it Now because our Church by examining those reasons that caused the Fathers to institute vse this Ceremony of the Crosse in Baptisme hath founde that as it vvas then so it may be stil a Ceremony of decencie and profitable admonition in the Church shee hath therefore according to that liberty which in matter of Ceremonie is permitted to every severall Church retained this abrogated some other which in her iudgmeÌ„t seemed both more burdensome lesse profitable These reasons coÌ„curring with antiquity adde the greater weight vnto it as on the other side it addeth also vnto them all of theÌ„ togither yeeld cause very sufficient why some ancient Ceremonies rather be retained then other some And therefore to your first question why doe we not vse other ancient Ceremonies as well as this J answere Because our Church thought them not so necessary nor convenient Shee might no doubt haue still retained them if shee would For J willingly submit my weaker iudgement to that most graue and learned iudgment of Mr. Bucer Bucer in 4. ca ad Ephes De caeteris signis quae in sacris adhibita sunt à veteribus vel hodie adhibentur à multis vt sunt ignis ad exorcismos catechismos alba vestis Baptizatorum sacer panis qui dabatur Catechumenis pleraque alia sic sentio Si quae Ecclesiae essent quae puram Christi tenerent doctrinam et sinceram seruarent disciplinam hisque signis vterentur simpliciter et pure absque omni superstitione vel leuitate praecise ad pias admonitiones easque probe omnibus intellectas eas Ecclesias non possum equidem propter signorum talem vsum condemnare Your two examples of Lactis et mellis concordia and offerings for the dead are auntient Ceremonies indeed in those times had no doubt their very good profitable vse as of the former Tertullian testifieth lib. de coron mil. cap. 3. and of the latter both Mr. Beza Beza de notis Eccles P. Martyr in ca. 7 Judicum Peter Martyr as is recorded before therfore though Tertullian doth establish these the signe of the Crosse with the same warranty of tradition or Ecclesiasticall constitution yet our Church counteth them not so necessary nor so fitt for these latter times The second braunch of your answere is If vpon the Fathers tradition we vse the Crosse then must we receiue and vse it as they haue deliuered it vnto vs that is with opinion of vertue and efficacy Supposing that this opinion of vertue efficacy wherof we shall say more afterwards was euill in the Fathers yet there is no reasoÌ„ why we hauing free liberty to make our choice should be bound to take their euill things with their good as hath bin shewed before out of St. Hierome For he that gaue vs the free commission of omnia probate Pag. 97. restrained vs only to good things in our choice quod bonum est tenete But my affection willing J confesse in nothing rashly to accuse the Auntients leadeth me rather to thinke that eueÌ„ this opinioÌ„ of vertue efficacy that you speake of was no evill thing in them For though they vsed the consignation of the Crosse in those actions that you mentioÌ„ a litle after yet they yeelded no opinioÌ„ of vertue and efficacy to that signe but to the Crosse passion of Christ wherof that signe was an outward token and resemblance And this J hope to make apparant to the indifferent reader in every particular of your accusation First therfore you accuse them for ascribing virtue efficacy to the signe of the Crosse in the Act of blessing themselues in common conversation this you proue out of Tertullians Ad omnem progressum atque promotum c. But what if they by this act of signing theÌ„selues with the signe of the Crosse did not intend blessing of themselues as you tearme it but remembrance of Christes benefits performed for them on the Crosse For so S. Cyrill answereth Iulian the Apostata when hee had called the Christians Cyrill Alexand coner Iulianum lib 6. tom 3. miseros quibus curae esset semper dâ—mos frontes signo pretiosae crucis signare Haec omnia saith hee meaning the benefits of Christs passioÌ„ which he had recited before recordari nos facit salutare lignum 2. Cor. 5.15 suadet ut cogitemus quòd sicut dicit diuinus Paulus vnus pro omnibus mortuus est vt viventes non vltrà sibijpsis vivaÌ„t sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est resurrexit And a little after pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriaÌ„ omnis boni omnis virtutis What if they ascribed not this vvhich you call blessing to the signe of the Crosse but to Christs passion represented and remembred vnto them by this signe for so M. Perkins teacheth you to thinke of them Crux apud veteres non significat ipsum signuÌ„ crucis Perkins demoÌ„st prob cap. de signo crucis sed per Metonymiam passionem crucifixi To which purpose he expoundeth Constantines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Deo non signo and citeth an authoritie of Chrysostome Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 55. Crucem non simpliciter digito in corpore sed magna profecto fide in mente formare oportet And aftervvards concludeth all that hee had saide before with this most excellent rule how the Fathers are to be vnderstood wheÌ„ they attribute any thing to this signe Omnia dicta Patrum saith he vbi cruceÌ„ spem redemptionem ac saluteÌ„ c esse volunt intelligenda esse relatiuè vt referantur ad passionem Christi vel ad ipsum crucifixum signo crucis representatum So that not only the Fathers reposed no such vertue and efficacy in the signe but also if any man should vse it now which yet J will not commend vnto any man by reason of the scandall it may bring with it J hold that iudgement of Hemingius very sound Hemin in 1 ep Ioan. cap. 5. Qui manè surgens et vesperi cubitum vadens signat se cruce in signum militiae Christianae non est culpandus modo absit superstitio SecoÌ„dly you accuse them for ascribing vertue and efficacy to the signe of the Crosse in expelling and chasing away of Deuils for proofe whereof you cite Hierome ad Demetriadem Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 17. Zanch. de redemp l. 1. p. 366 and Chrysostome in Psal 109. All these autorities J easily grant to be true and
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.
10. of the Primitiue Church That it is not indifferent to our Church whether it bee taken away or not both because we are not to reiect ancient institutiōs where there is no neede and also to make knowne to the Romanists that we willingly reiect nothing that possiblie may be reduced to his first integritie Vpon these groūds and deliberations our good Magistrates in K. Edwardes daies did not abolish the vse of the Crosse in Baptisme And vpon the same grounds our worthy Prince Magistrates that now are thinke it meete to retaine it still Quid hic peccatum est what offence J pray you is this or why should not you be as fauourable to our Christian liberty herein as the most learned Mr. Beza is Beza Respon ad Franc. Baldvin pag. 227. Scio non nullos sublata crucis adoratione aliquem signi crucis vsū retinuisse vtantur igitur ipsi sicut par est sua libertate I answere thirdly that our Reformers did the same thing in their reformation of the Crosse in Baptisme which Ezekiah did in his reformation of the Brasen Serpent for what was that which Hezekiah did surely it was that he tooke away the abuse wherin it was faulty not the right vse wherein it was typicall and figuratiue The abuse wherein it was faulty was the burning of Incense vnto it and worshipping of it the occasion of this abuse was that opinion and estimation of Deity which the people had falsly affixed vnto it both these he tooke away namely the abuse and the occasion Our reformers haue done the very same They haue taken away first the abuse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme which was the too great estimation and opinion of grace power and vertue that the people erroniously reposed in it and secondly the occasion of that abuse which was the ignorance and misvnderstanding of the people for want of instruction Only the difference is that the abuse which was the least in the Idolatrous Iewes namely their false opinion of Deity in the Serpent was the greatest in our men as touching the Crosse and that which was the greatest in them namely their worshiping and burning incense vnto the Serpent was none at al in ours in the signe of the Crosse For our men going as far as they in ascribing vertue which was an equal fault in both could not go so far in worshiping adoring because of the diversitiy of the natures of the seueral things The brasen Serpent being a substance materiall and permanent and therfore easely subiect to adoration by reason of the outward shape and forme The signe of the Crosse an action immateriall and transient therfore nothing so easely to be worshipped by reason it wanted both substance shape and forme Secondly Hezekiah neither tooke away nor purposed to take away the right vse of the serpent wherin it was not faulty namely that it was a type of Christs exaltatiō on the Crosse and therin a representation of the Messiah This vse remained still after the reformation of Hezekiah Neither did our Gouernors take away that vse of the signe of the Crosse wherin it was not faulty Neither did they suppose it meete to take it away but restoring it to that vse for which it was instituted at the first left it stil to be a memoratiue signe of our promise made to Christ in Baptisme and a secret and faithfull admonisher of our duties So that we may safely say our Reformers followed the reformation of Hezekiah most exactly in al points wherein the diuers natures of the abuses the things did not make a necessary difference of their reformation Concerning your comparing of the authors The brasen Serpent commanded by God and the Crosse in Baptisme ordained by man though J haue answered therto before this now J add moreouer by way of retortion Though both did giue occasion to Idolatry yet the brasen Serpent even therfore because it was ordained by God might minister a more probable present and obuious fall into Idolatry then the Crosse in Baptisme in that it was ordained by man This I declare thus When mens minds are once infected with superstition they take holde soonest of that which is most commended by the author the more worthy the author is the more firmely they cleaue to that which they haue once fastned their error vppon if therfore they finde God to be the author of it they take that for reason sufficient why they should worship it This cause made the Idolatrous Iewes not only to worship the brasen Serpent at the first but also to thinke that in so doing they did well because they worshipped only that wherof they knewe certainly God himselfe to be the author The same reason moued those Idolators reproued by the Prophet Ierem. 13 19. Ierem. 8.2 to burne incense to the Sunne and Moone and all the host of heauen and to worship thē thinking their Idolatry the more iustifiable because it tooke occasion not vppon any inuention of man but vppon those excellent creatures of God whom hee hath placed so high and adorned with so great beauty Contrariwise the deuises and inuentions of men such as the Crosse is are alwayes doubtfull and suspected euen vnto the Idolators themselues and haue not their occasion so present immediate as the other For first the Author must haue some reason for his deuise and then authority to giue countenance thervnto and lastly the opinion of the people approuing the reason imbracing the authority which points being wel considered as they make a farther way about to bring the credit of adoration to that which is inuented by man so they are good meanes to persuade the people to forsake their Idolatry when they haue imbraced it So that your argument from the diuersity of the Authors doth rather make against you then giue any strength to your cause The like may be said of the opiniō of vertue which the Jdolator is alwaies willing to ascribe vnto his Idoll For when it doth manifestly appeare that that which he maketh an Idoll is commanded of God the Jllation is farr more present and easy Ergo it cannot be without vertue then can be applied to any ordinance deuised by man Concerning your comparing of the brasen Serpent and the Crosse together wee must confesse the Jdolatrie is like and worthy to be punished with like extirpation so long as you cōpare the material brasen Serpent with the material Crosse of wood stone brasse or anie outward sensible substance For these having once gottē the opinion of Deity to reside in thē expose themselues to be adored by the vulgar sort no lesse and in no inferiour degree then the Serpent did But when you extend your comparison to match the immateriall consignatiō of the Crosse in Baptisme with the materiall brasen Serpent your comparison holdeth not correspondency as in the former For there is great difference betweene this consignation and those other Crosses so that