Thibaritanos ca. 7. Christianicum Ethnicis Christum crucifixum deridentibus permixti vt doctrinae salutaris quae in ChristuÌ„ nos credere iubet se minime pudere testaerentur digitis in aere formabant figuram transuersam quasi crucis quae Cerimonia tunc erat Christianismi non superstitionis Magicae vt postea accidit symbolum That it might once haue had good vse and was a profession of Christianity as Mr. Beza speaketh Or that St. Augustine and other Auntients vsed it with such due regard as therto belonged as Hemingius thinketh Or that it was a most auntient vse in the Church very simple and of present admonition of the Crosse of Christ as Bucer testifieth to my vnderstanding doth plainly describe a most Christian and religious vse of it among the Auntients and vtterly discouer your slaunderous accusation But those other that tel you particularly wherin it was wel vsed as Pezel M. Perk. by a proposition most manifestly contradictory vnto yours say it had a most holy and godly end as Daneus and that it was without any superstition in the Auntients as Goulartius Zanchius doe They J say plainly free it from sinn and superstitioÌ„ and with a contrary testimony in flatt termes conuince the insolency and audaciousnes of your false asseueration Touching the second if it were yet being an humane ordinance c. your two reasons because it is an humane ordinance abused and because it is now also become an Idoll are answered before And it hath oftentimes bin said that those pollutions how abhominable soeuer doe extend them selues no farther then to the Persons that are polluted with them Jndifferent things cannot defile them that vse them with a sincere minde and pure conscience how soeuer they be abused by others And therfore you might wel haue spared your huge words Execrable abhominable Idoll filth no water caÌ„ clense it nor any pretext purifie it c. except you had brought other arguments then these the weaknes wher of doth most manifestly appeare Al the bigg words that you can bring wil not make the vncleannes you speake of defiâ—e the Innocent nor the pollution and abhomination of Popish Idolatry cleaue vnto the true ProtestaÌ„t that with a good conscience vseth the Ceremony and with hart and soule abhorreth the superstition And thus much to the second part of your answere Your third followeth now to be considered Treatise 10. Sect. But in very deed to speake as the truth is the Crosse is retained among vs Canon 30. with opinion very superstitious erroneous For in the late Canons it is saide that the Childe is thereby dedicated vnto the service of him that died on the Crosse what is this but to equal mans ordinance with Gods And to ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto Baptisme A conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians to assent vnto Neither do we vse it as the Ancients did for Cyprian Augustine Chrysostome and others as is apparant at those times did consecrate the elements therewith and did not crosse the childes forehead at all but referred that vnto the Bishops confirmation So that our crossing the Infants forehead not the element of Baptisme is a meere novelty without any warrant of that antiquitie Neither will that place of Tertullian de resurrectione carnis proue the contrary The flesh is washed that the soule may bee purged the flesh is annointed that the soule may be consecrated the flesh is signed that the soule may be garded the flesh is shaddowed by the imposition of hands that the soule may be by the spirit enlightned the flesh doth feede on the body bloud of Christ that the soule may be filled and fatted of God In which words he ioining togither divers Ceremonies of the Christians doth indeed meÌ„tioÌ„ the signing of the faithfull but it may as well be referred to confirmatioÌ„ expressed by imposition of hands as to Baptisme vnderstoode by the washing of the body that on better reason for it is more then probable that the signe of the Crosse was not yet vsed in Baptisme seeing Just Martyr in defens ad Antoninum Tertull. de Baptismo de corona militis doe describe the forme of Baptisme vsed in those times and yet make no mention of the Crosse therein which in all likelyhood they would not haue omitted if it had bin vsed therein Especially Tertullian who in that very place speaketh of the Crosse as vsed out of Baptisme in the ordinary blessing of themselues Replie to the third part of the Treatisers answere to the first obiection This tenth Section containeth two grievous accusations wherewith the Treatiser doth charge our Church and the governors thereof The first That the signe of the Crosse is retained among vs with opinion very superstitious and erroneous The second That we doe not vse it as the Ancients did Grievous crimes no doubt if they be iustly laid vpon vs But if vniustly then meere reproaches and slanders of the Treatiser Touching the first S. Hierome saith In causa haereseos nemixem decetesse patientem Jt becommeth no ma to hold patience when he is accused of heresie The Treatiser belike meant to trie our patience when he burdened vs with opinion of the Crosse both erroneous and superstitious Jf he had accused vs of error only the matter had not bin so very great For homines sumus errare possumus we are men and therefore subiect vnto errour And yet here also he might haue remembred that the companie of those lâ—arned men that made the Canon was as vnlikely to erre as either the Treatiser or his adherents But wheÌ„ vnto his accusation of error he addeth the most heinous crime of superstition this is such an imputation as whereof by all good meanes we are bound to cleare our selues But he proveth it for in the late Canons it is said that the child is therby dedicated vnto the service of him that died on the Crosse what is this but to equall mans ordinaÌ„ce with Gods And to ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto Baptisme A conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians to assent vnto If wee assented either to the one or to the other it were indeede not onlie a conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians but also an opinion erroneous and superstitious and which is more prowd insolent and presumptious too But how doth the word dedicated inforce thus much namely because the Sacrament which is Gods ordinance can doe no more but Dedicate the Infant to the service of him that died on the Crosse And therefore when wee saie the signe of the Crosse which is but mans invention doeth Dedicate doe we not equallmans ordinance with Gods ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto the Sacrament J answere no For first the Sacrament doth more then dedicate only for it really giueth that which it promiseth is to the child that which it doth signifie
lib ... c. 17 and largely sheweth If a man may invocate to an Angell or giue any honour internall to a creature shall it not be called Idolatry except he bow outwardly vnto it How then doeth Paule saie that Couetousnes is Idolatry For a rich man doth not outwardly worship his goods Eph. 5.6 Coloss 3.5 â—â—rk 10.24 Tim. 6.19 Luk. 12 15. Phil. 3.19 yet because he giueth vnto it interne confidence which is due vnto God it is truely called his Idol as vnto the Sardanapali there belly is termed their God Right so the Papists ascribing to the signe of the Crosse that honor confidence which belongeth to God doe make it an execrable Idoll Quaest disput de venial pâ—ce so most vnfitt to stand in the sanctuary or to be annexed to the holy things of God For first they ascribe vnto the signe of the Crosse power vertue to meritt pardon at the least for veniall synnes as appeareth by Tho. Aquinas Bellarmine and the Rhemistes Also it is held to partake of power efficient and immediatly operatiue and that to conuert sinners Marshall de cruce fol. 114. 115. yea to gaine saluation Hosius coÌ„tra Brent pag. 227. and generally the whole rabble of Romish Doctors doe teach to put great affiance in this signe for chasing away diuells and curing diseases and sanctifieing both man and other Creatures to the vse of man Secondly I say indeed they doe giue outward aswell as inward worship to the Crosse For it is apparant that they inuocate it in the same maÌ„ner that they inuocate Saincts when they say Per crucis hoc signuÌ„ fugiat procul omne malignum By this signe of holy Crosse let euills al flie farr from vs. Againe by the signe of the holy Crosse from our enemies deliuer vs o Lord our God Also in another place victorious Crosse and admirable signe make vs triumph and ioy in heauenly Courts diuine yea in praiers they ioine at with Iesus Christ as in officio Missae is to be seene where they supplicate per misericordam Iesu Christi per auxilium signum Crucis per intercessionem beatae Mariae c. They couple it also with the bloud of Christ in these words defend me Iesu ab omnibus vitijs malis praeteritis praesentibus futuris per signum sanctae crucis per in aestimabile pretium iusti pretiosi saÌ„guinis tui All which doth most manifestly proue that among the Papists it is religiously honored both with inward confidence and outward reuerence Answere Though al that the Treatiser alleadgeth in this sectioÌ„ should be graunted yet nothing is concluded against our Crosse For whereas his conclusion should be this Ergo. the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme as it is vsed in the Church of England is an Idoll he bringeth vs only this conclusion Ergo. the signe of the Crosse in the Church of Rome is an Idoll his argument is this VVhat soeuer the Church of Rome doth adore with diuine honor whervnto it yeeldeth both interne coÌ„fidence outward worshipp is an Idoll But the Church of Rome doth adore the sign of the Crosse with diuine honor yeeldeth vnto it interne coÌ„fidence outward worshipp Ergo. The signe of the Crosse in the Church of Rome is an Idol The Maior is false VVhat soever the Church of Rome doth adore c For so the bread in the Lords supper should likewise be an Idoll because the Church of Rome doth adore it with diuine honor and yeeldeth both interne confidence and outward worshipp therevnto as is better obiected then answered in the first obiection Againe if vnto those words whatsoeuer the Church of Rome doth adore c. is an Idoll you had added those words in the Church of Rome your Maior had beene true we should not haue denied it But from secunduÌ„ quid to coÌ„clude ad simpliciter as you alwaies doe is too simple a ConclusioÌ„ to deceaue any man that is but a meane Logician wee cannot graunt that their is eadem ratio vrbis et orbis nor that that must needs be an Idol in euery place that the Church of Rome hath made an Idol within hir owne Iurisdiction Touching the Minor we partly graunt it and partly denie it we graunt it De signo crucis materiali such as were Crucifixes of wood stone or mettall plaine Crosses of all sorts without the Image of Christ And so we vnderstand all your proofes two only excepted whereof you shal heare our answer by and by De signo or rather de coÌ„signatione crucis immateriali drawen in the aire or vpon the forehead without any print remaining we denie it and answere to your two proofes the one out of Bellarmine SignuÌ„ crucis quod in fronte Vel in aere pingitur est sacrum venerabile the other out of Costerus Christiani summâ veneratione coluerunt signum crucis quo se quotidiè muniunt that there is great difference betweene veneratio the word that they vse in those places and adoration the word that you applie vnto them The first expressiing only a reuerent regard that they haue of the signe The other a religious worship which you say they yeeld vnto it J wil not take vpon me their defence nor iustifie their absurdities for J willingly acknowledge that they haue too too superstitiously thought of this consignation also and extended their summa veneratio to the highest degree of supersticious opinion in ascribing too much power vertue and efficacy thervnto as you declared in the second place of this Section But yet J cannot be persuaded that signum sacrum venerabile or suÌ„ma veneratio as they call it do signifie adoration with diuine honor or interne confidence and outward worship as you affirme Three things therefore I answere to the Minor First That the Papists doe indeed very superstitiously deeme of the consignation of the Crosse in Baptisme that it is of vertue force efficacy which we do vtterly in plaine tearme deny Secondly I suppose that the Treatiser will never be able to proue that the coÌ„signatioÌ„ of the Crosse in Baptisme eveÌ„ in the grossest time of Popery was ever made an Idol or had any divine adoration or interne worship or externe honour exhibited vnto it For first howe could it the thing ceasing to bee as soone as ever it was made and then who should worship it The childe could not the Priest people reflected rather their devotion to their materiall wooden Crosses and mettall Crucifixes which they had ever at hand then to this immateriall transient marke Ac certum est Zanch de redemp li. 1. c. 17 omnes ferè Idololatras solitos semper fuisse neque Deum vel verum vel falsum vel vllam creaturam externa adoratione colere adorare nisi sub in aliquâ figurâ illum representante and so farre only holdeth that Tho. Aqu p 3. â— 25. 4. cap. which you alleadge out of Tho. Aquinas
Cōtrariwise the Crosse neither giueth any thing to the child nor promiseth nor is any other thing then an outward Ceremony only signifying that the child hereafter should not be ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ crucified c. Secondly the word Dedicate doth not alwaies signifie to sanctifie or to Consecrate but somtimes to appropriate to appoint to some special vse to declare and testifie that the thing is assigned addicted and called out to such for such a seueral purpose office person or seruice And this is most manifest by that vse of this word which is most ordinary and common in our speach As namely to dedicate a book to a great personage is not in in our language to consecrate sanctifie it vnto him but by that word of Dedication we testifie and declare our loue duty affection towards him appoint the book so dedicated to be a manifest signe token proofe argument and declaration of our loue The word Dedicated therfore being Ecclesiasticall and very frequent in this signification it was thought fitt to be retained in this matter rather then to take in a word more strang nothing so significant Especially considering that ther are many words and sentences in that Canon both affirmatiue and negatiue very sufficient to declare and make manifest vnto al reasonable men that the Church of England doeth not attribute any sanctifiing or consecrating of the child to the seruice of Christ vnto any vertue grace or power of or in the signe of the Crosse Thirdly though both the Sacrament and the signe of the Crosse may be said to dedicate yet they doe not both dedicate after the same sort for the Sacrament doth dedicate as a signe and as a Sacrament too the Crosse as a signe or ceremony only the Sacrament doth dedicate as a cause efficient instrumentall working inwardly by the operation of Gods spirite the Crosse doth dedicate as a cause declaratory testimonial witnessing outwardly to the Church and to the partie that is baptized And so much the very wordes of the Canon woulde haue taught you but that you would not learne when it saith Accounting it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honorable badge wherby the Infant is dedicated c. The wearing of a badge or cognizance of some noble man or the colours of some Captaine doth not J hope in your apprehension make the servant or souldior that weareth it to be of such a noble mans retinew or such a captaines regiment But because he is of that retinewe he weareth that badge or cognizance and because hee is of that regimēt he weareth those colours And yet both the one and the other doth make other men to know withall doth put himselfe in remembrance that such a noble mans man or such a captaines souldior hee is and such he ought to shew himselfe to be Even so it is in the matter of the Crosse The signe of the Crosse maketh not the childe to be the servant or souldior of Christ but because by Baptisme he is so made therfore he is signed with that honorable badge that thereby both other mē may know that he is the servant and souldiour of Christ Declaratorie quoad alios memorativè et monitoriè quoad scipsum and himselfe may be remembred and admonised that he is in al his life to shew himselfe as the faithfull servant of such a master and the couragious souldiour of such a captaine Which our Communion book most wisely beyond all exception of malice setteth downe in these religious tearmes In token that he shall not be ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight vnder his banner against sin the world and the Divel and to continue his faithfull souldiour and servant vnto his liues end Lastly if the Canon should haue said sanctified or cōsecrated I perceiue we should haue had much a do with the Treatiser And yet al Antiquity as afterwards I shal haue better occasion to declare Aug. de peccat meritis remissione lib. 2. cap. 26. and specially St. Augustine teacheth vs so to say Catechumenos saith he secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi orationē manus impositionis puto sanctificari J thinke the Catechumeni are sanctified after a certaine manner of theirs by the signe of Christ and praier of laying on of handes But what neede J alleadge St. Augustine our owne men vse the word consecrare to signifie to allot or appoint for some vse as I told you before the word dedicare did signifie As may appeare at large by the testimony of Goulartius Consecrare panem vinum Goulart Cap. ep 63. num 39. est ea divinis ac sacris vsibus destinare c. But our Canon of purpose declined those words which might any waies breed offēce vnto the weake brethren and made choice of this harmlesse and innocent word Dedicated which favorably vnderstood giueth no offence and is farr from al such danger of error superstition as the Treatiser woulde make the ignorant reader to beleeue Your second accusation laieth two greiuous Corruptions to our charge as namely 1 That in the sign of the Crosse we doe not that which the Auntients did For Cyprian Augustine Chrysostome and others as is apparant at those times did consecrate the elements therewith which wee doe not 2 That we doe that which the Auntients did not For they did not crosse the childs forhead at all but referred that vnto the Bishopps confirmation So that our crossing the Infants forehead not the element of Baptisme is a meere nouelty of some 600. yeares standing as you say in the Margent without any warrant of that antiquity For answer to the first That we do not al that the Antients did that is not vse the signe of the Crosse to so many purposes as they did we do easily acknowledge But this is nothing to the point in question For what if this particular you alleadge of consecrating the Element with the sign of the Crosse were one of those Naeui of the Ancients What if they haply did amisse in so doing as you say afterwards they did Or what if they did well in so doing the superstitiō was brought in afterwards Will you haue vs to imbrace their vices as well as their vertues Or wil you take away the liberty of our Church in making choice of her Ceremonies Or will you hence conclude that we may not retaine their good things for the which they are worthely commended except we also receiue those defectes and imperfections which succeeding ages brought in afterwardes But this is no way agreeable to reasō I rather think it better to follow that coūsel that St. Hierom giueth of reading Origens works Hieron ad Trā qutll l. 1. ep 54. and to apply it to this matter of the Ceremonies of the Auntients Vt bona eorum eligamus vitemusque cōtraria iuxta Apostolum dicentem omnia probate quod bonum est