An ansvvere to a certaine treatise of the crosse in baptisme. Intituled A short treatise of the crosse in baptisme contracted into this syllogisme. No humane ordinance becomming an idoll may lawfully be vsed in the service of God. But the signe of the crosse, being an humane ordinance is become an idoll. Ergo: the signe of the crosse, may not lawfully bee vsed in the service of God. VVherein not only the weaknesse of the syllogisme it selfe, but also of the grounds and proofes thereof, are plainely discovered. By L.H. Doct. of Divinitie.

Replie to the Treatisers answere.

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

Secondly, your proofe of this difference, by these parti∣culars.

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

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

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

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

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

For howsoever Bellarmine would insinuate, &c. yet

you preferre Tertullians iudgement, who saith, Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, &c.

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

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

Concerning your first proofe, & point of difference, when you say, That which God hath commanded is neces∣sary, that which man ordained is indifferent; J grant, that which God hath commanded is indeed necessarie, for the

matter, and necessarie for the forme: (wherein yet looke vpon the second Epistle of M^r. Beza. How far it is neces∣sarie to be done as he hath commanded:) necessary to be re∣claimed from all abuses, that it hath bin subiect vnto: and necessary to be restored to his first and true vse. But be∣fore 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 vn∣derstand, the things them selues, as they are of themselues, we grant that the Church cānot make a thing indifferent, to be of it selfe, other then a thing indifferent: but if you vnderstand the same things, as they are for vse, lawfully commanded, or forbidden, by the authority of the Church, then we must tel you, that it is not freely in your owne power, and liberty, whether you will vse them, or not vse them accordingly: for then they cease to be altogether in∣different, & beginn to become some way necessary: which that you may the rather beleeue, J will direct you to M^r. Bezaes 24. Epistle, where you may learne it.

Res alioqui per se mediae (saith he) mutant quodammodo naturam, cum aliquo legitimo mandato, vel praecipiuntur, vel prohibentur; quia ne{que} contra iustum praeceptum omitti possunt, si praecipiantur, ne{que} contra interdictum fieri, si prohibeantur.

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

Nam et si conscientias propríe solus Deus ligat: tamen quatenus Ecclesia, ordinis & decori, adeó{que} aedificationis ra∣tionem

habens, leges aliquas de rebus medijs ritè condit, e∣iusmodi leges pijs omnibus sunt obseruandae, & ••atenus cō∣scientias ligant, vt nemo sciens & prudens, rebellandi a∣nimo, possit abs•• peccato, vel facere quae ita prohibentur, vel omittere quae sic praecipiuntur.

For though God only doth properly bind the consciences: yet so farr forth as the Church, hauing regard of order, de∣cency, and aedification, maketh rightly any lawes, cōcern∣ing 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 forbid∣den, or omitt those things, which are so commanded.

I pray you M^r Treatiser, marke diligently the words, conscientias ligant, or, nemo sciens & prudens rebellandi animo, possit abs{que} peccato: for you knowe how many of your brethren, are forgetfull of this instruction: without sinne, say you, what sinne J pray you? J referre you for an∣swere to an other. Qui violat Ecclesiasticam politiam pec∣cat multis modis: primum enim reus fit violati ordinis in Ecclesia: deinde authoritatem Magistratus contemnit: tū infirmorum conscientias vulnerat: postremò nocet exem∣plo: & charitatem erga fratres violat.

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

Againe whereas speaking of things necessary, in your margent you giue vs to vnderstād, that of this nature are Churches, Pulpits, &c. J demand, of what nature? meane

you of the same nature, that the bread in the supper is? for so the purport of your answer seemeth to imply, that be∣ing only vrged in the obiectiō. Jf this be your meaning, you are very much mistaken: for though Churches and Pulpits, are very necessary in deed, in their kinde: yet their necessity is not of that nature, that the bread in the supper is of. For the bread in the supper, is simply, and absolutely necessary, insomuch that if there be no bread, there is no Sacrament: but Churches, and Pulpits are only necessarie for conveniency, and decency: for I hope, those Caetus an∣telucani, ad canendum Christo & Deo, meetings in the morning to sing to Christ, and God, as Tertullian spea∣keth, frequented by the Christians, in the time of perse∣cutiō, were grateful vnto God, though not done in Chur∣ches, and those verba praepositi exhortatoria, ad imitationē tam honestarum rerum, words of the Provost, wherewith he exhorted to the imitation of so honest things, vvhich Iustine Martyr mentioneth, may be esteemed good ser∣mons, 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 pri∣vate 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 necessa∣ry, are not yet so necessary, even in your owne opinion, as the bread in the supper: nor so greatly respected by you, as here you would make vs now beleeue.

Your second point of difference, betweene things cō∣manded by God, and ordained by man is, No abuse can al∣ter

the nature of that, which God hath cōmanded, but that which man hath ordained, may by abuse become vnlawful: as the retaining the brasen Serpēt, which you note in the margent, was no where commanded, and therefore Heze∣chia did worthily breake it, not seeking to redresse the a∣buse 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 re∣duced to his first integrity: we concur with you in this o∣pinion, & thinke the very same in the signe of the Crosse: No, say you, not so, because that which mā hath ordained may by abuse become vnlawfull: this we confesse also, but adde, that by right vse, it may againe also become lawful: for what should hinder it? Because, say you, it is ordained by man▪ so then the point of difference consisteth in the di∣versity of the Authors: the bread abused may againe bee rightly vsed, because God is the author of that institution: the Crosse in Baptisme once abused, can never againe be rightly vsed, because man is the ordainer thereof: God and man doe differ, tanquam creator & creatura: betweene whom Christ being both God and man, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, medius: be∣tweene God I say, on the one side, & all mankinde on the other: but to bring them yet a great deale nearer: God & faithful man, regenerated by the spirit of God (of which sort is the Church and every true member thereof) doe differ, tanquam pater & filius, as the father & the sonne, I will bee a father vnto you, and yee shall bee my sonnes and

daughters, betweene whom Christ in both natures, is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a mediatour, or reconciler, to take away that diffe∣rence, which was betweene them, and vs, that wee might be the habitation of God by the spirit: So that these, as you see, differ only as relatiues, whose difference is, their natu∣rall reciprocation, and whose diuersitie is their coniunctiō: the on not crossing, but referring it selfe vnto the other: Only God and vnregenerate men, differ, tanquam hostes, like opposites, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that swaieth in them, is enmity with God, as the Apostle teacheth: so that, except you wil say, that vnregenerate and wicked man, is the or∣dainer of the Crosse, as you doe falsly, when you say it is, the inuention of Antichrist, the man of sin (for by your owne confession, it is more auncient then he) you see there is no such great difference between the bread in the supper, and the Crosse in Baptisme, ex parte autoris, in re∣spect of the authors. The one being the ordinance of God, the other of the Church of God, which heareth his voice, & is guided by his spirit: the one being the ordinance of God, the other of the faithfull, the obedient Children & sons of God: as partly before hath bin declared. J supposed ra∣ther, that you would haue made the difference to consist, in the diuersity of the pollutions, which each of them in the time of their abuse had cōtracted. The bread, a pollutiō indeed, but easely separable, & remoueable from it againe: The Crosse such a pollution, or filth, as afterwards you please to call it, as no water can clense it, nor any pretext purifie it, for the holy seruice of Iehoua. But because you vse these florishes, in the next sectiō, J wil spare to speake of it, tel J meet you there.

Thirdly you presse vs with the example of Hezekiah. The brasen serpent, say you, though commanded by God

himselfe, yet retained without his expresse cōmandement, became an Idoll, and was therfore worthily broken of He∣zekiah, not seeking to reforme the abuse, Therfore much more the Crosse in Baptisme, which was ordained by man only, being abused in as high a degree of Idolatry as the bra∣sen Serpent was, is vtterly to be destroied, without any far∣ther redresse.

This is the, nodus Gordius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and height of all your obiections, your fortresse, and bulwarke, your Herculeum & Achilleum argumentum, wherin you repose all your strength and greatest confidence: and therfore J wil inde∣uor, so to fitt mine answere, to euery point therof, as J trust the indifferent reader, shal easely perceaue your weaknes, euen in the midst of al your strength:

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

First the duty of a Kinge & cheife Magistrate, on whom it lieth to reforme abuses, and without whose authority, no priuat man is to assume that office, vnto himselfe: Rex domino aliter seruit quia homo est, aliter quia etiam et Rex est: quia homo est, et seruit viuendo fideliter quia etiā Rex, ei seruit, cum ea facit adseruiendum illi, quae non potest fa∣cere, nisi Rex. which J note the rather to put our Treati∣ser, and his adherents, in minde of their too much forward∣nes, to begin reformation, being but priuat persons, and to put it in practise, without commission. Nemo hanc au∣toritatem

publicam, & consensum Ecclesiae, Priuatis homi∣nibus, vt hoc agant, pius et sapiens autor est nemo. Those priuat men, that are thus busy, had neither piety nor wis∣dome, to giue thē counsell for so doing. Secondly His zeale in Gods cause, which was most feruent, & such it ought to be, in al good Gouernors, and reformers. Thirdly his re∣formation in repressing Idolatry, & taking away the occa∣sion therof. Fourthly that together with his reformatiō, he ioined instruction, & teaching of the people: for whē hee saw them to repose a power of healing, in the brasen Ser∣pent, he called it Nehustan, & shewing thē the matter, taught them that it had no such power in it; and was no∣thing but a lump of brasse: al these things, J doubt not, but that our reformers proposed vnto themselues, for an example of reformation.

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

Now if our Predecessors, and Reformers followed him

not, in this manner of reforming, by vttter subuersiō, they had great reason so to do, being men, whom neither the abuses might so particularly concerne, as this did Heze∣kiah, and knowing moreover, that, Ad eundem finem multis medijs peruenitur. Reformation of abuses, & taking away of Jdolatry is the end, and this end may be attained by more waies then on, as either, by

Instructing the people, and teaching them the right vse: or by Lawes prohibiting the Jdolatry: or by punish∣ments, 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, in∣to 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; (Re∣ligiosâ 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 Mo∣nestaries of this Land, is likewise commended: yet manie both zealous, and religious professors, could rather haue wished, that so many famous Monuments, erected some∣time

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 o∣therwise 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 o∣therwise be redressed, as in the signe of the Crosse, there de∣struction, & vtter subuersion, is not alwaies the best cure. And herein plainely is the difference, betweene the bra∣sen Serpent, and the Crosse. Hezechiah saw the abuse of the Serpent; otherwise incureable, for vnto those daies (saith the scripture) the children of Jsrael, did burne in∣cense vnto it▪ vnto those daies, importeth a long time be∣fore, and an inevitable abuse, that had long continued; wherein (as we are in al good reason to conceiue) the for∣mer 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. Per hoc, magna autori∣tas ista est habenda in Ecclesia, vt si no anulli ex praedeces∣soribus & maioribus nostris, fecerunt aliqua quae illo tem∣pore potuerunt esse sine culpa, & posteà vertuntur in errorē & superstitionem: sine tarditate aliqua, & cum magna au∣toritate, à posteris destruantur. For this cause this autho∣rity 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 authori∣ty. 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 An∣tichrist; 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 principal∣ly reside; whether in the persons, that do abuse the thing, or in the thing that is abused. For reason would general∣ly, that as by the skilfull Physitian, cures are applied to those parts, that are most affected, so by the discreet Ma∣gistrate, the redresse should be made there, where the a∣buse principally consisteth. Jf in the persons the easines, or difficulty, of reforming them, is diligently to be respe∣cted. Jf in the thing that is abused, the Magistrate is like∣wise 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 Mes∣siah, yet there remained a memory of it in the bookes of Moses, that would serue that turne, though this were ta∣ken away. Lastly, that it was all one, these things conside∣red, whether it were preserved still, or vtterly abolished: vpon which grounds, he proceeded, to that, so much cō∣mended execution, brake it in peeces, and called it, Ne∣hushtan. The same deliberations likewise, in our refor∣mers, 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 Blasphe∣mers, as it was at the first, against heathen, and Pagan Ido∣lators. That if it were taken away, the Church of Rome, might iustly accuse vs, of abrogating an harmelesse, & in∣nocent institution, 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, & Ma∣gistrates 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 M^r. Beza is? 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 Ser∣pent: 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 In∣cense 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 igno∣rance, 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, vn∣to the Serpent, was none at al in ours, in the signe of the Crosse. For our men, going as far as they, in ascribing ver∣tue, 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 Hezeki∣ah: 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 follow∣ed 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 bra∣sen Serpent commanded by God, and the Crosse in Bap∣tisme 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 bra∣sen 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 superstiti∣on, they take holde soonest of that, which is most com∣mended 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 Idola∣trous Iewes, not only to worship the brasen Serpent at the first; but also to thinke, that in so doing they did well; be∣cause they worshipped only that, wherof they knewe cer∣tainly, God himselfe to be the author. The same reason moued those Idolators, reproued by the Prophet, to burne incense to the Sunne, and Moone, and all the host of hea∣uen, and to worship thē, thinking their Idolatry the more iustifiable, because it tooke occasion, not vppon any in∣uention 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 sus∣pected, 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 consi∣dered, as they make a farther way about, to bring the cre∣dit 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 argu∣ment,

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 out∣ward 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 con∣signation, and those other Crosses: so that, wherein this is different, from them, therein also it must needs bee diffe∣rent from the brasen Serpēt. From those other Crosses, and so consequently, from the brasen Serpent, this con∣signation of the Crosse in Baptisme, doth differ, First in matter: they materiall, and sensible, this immateriall & in∣sensible. Secondly, in the end, they made perhaps, and fra∣med of purpose to be receptacles of divine worship, this only to serue for a signe of remembrance, being therefore iustly to be reckoned among those things, Quae pertinent

ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which belong to order and de∣cency: Because it admonisheth the rude people of their duty, and calleth men to a remembrance, of that obedi∣ence, that they owe to God, by a manifest and special sig∣nification, wherby the Church is edified. Thirdly, in the abuse, they abused in as high a degree of superstition, as the Serpent was, this only abused in erroneous opinion, and conceipt of vertue, and power, falsly ascribed vnto it. And fourthly in redresse, they no waies cureable, but by demolition, this curable by informing the vnderstanding aright, & teaching the ignorant, that we repose no power and vertue in it, nor yeeld any divine worship vnto it, but vse it only as an admonisher, & remēbrancer of our Chri∣stian duties: and therefore you must not argue, that be∣cause those material Crosses were as offensiue as the bra∣sen Serpent, therefore this immateriall consignatiō must needes be so. You shall doe better to distinguish them in name, calling them, as they are indeede, Crosses, and this the consignation of the Crosse: then to confound them in nature, or suffer your selfe to be deceived by the name, as if what things soeuer agree in name, must of necessity a∣gree in superstition, and Idolatry.

Lastly concerning your marginal note, that God no where cōmanded the retaining of the brasen Serpent; we answer, nether doth he any where forbid it: & J make no doubt, but had it not bin abused to superstition, it might without offence to God, haue beene retained, though he gaue no expresse commandement so to do. And he that considers, what great prerogatiues the brasen Serpent had, wil (I suppose) be of the same opinion. For it was ere¦cted, not by mans, but by Gods direct commandement. Jt was adorned and commended, with a most famous and

memorable miracle: Jt was a monumēt of a very strāge and extraordinary cure: Jt had continued a long time, & might almost alleadge Prescription, why it should be re∣tained stil: Jt was a type and figure of Christs exaltation on the Crosse, as himselfe expoundeth it: As Moses lift vp the brasen Serpent in the wildernes: so must the sonne of man be lifted vp, &c.

But what woulde you inferre vpon the not retaining of the brasen Serpent? That we should not retaine the vse of the Crosse in Baptisme? But this our Church hath enioyned, and commanded, whose commādement, we are bound in conscience to obay, so long as it commaundeth nothing contrary to the word, & will of God. For howso∣ever you & your consorts reiect obedience, yet we take it not our duties so to doe. Lawes made by the Church, of things indifferent (as M^r. Beza told you a litle before) doe so far binde the conscience, that no man wittingly, and willingly, and with a purpose of resisting (take heede M^r. Treatiser this clause cōclude not many of your Bro∣therhood) may without sin, either do those things which are so forbidden, or omit those things which are so com∣manded. Christiani populi of ficium est (saith M^r. Calvin) quae secundum hunc canonem (in quo charitas moderatrix est) fuerint instituta, &c. Jt is the duty of Christiā peo∣ple to obserue and keepe those lawes that shal be made, according to this rule, (meaning where charity is the Moderatrix as he said before) with a free conscience in∣deede, and no superstition, but with a godly and readie propension to obedience. Neither must they haue them in contempt, not by carelesse negligence omit them: much lesse through pride and stubbornnesse openly vi∣olate and resist thē. Where, by the way, let it trouble no

man, that M^r. Beza saith conscientias ligant, M^r. Calvin saith, libera quidem conscientia. For M^r. Beza in his bind∣ing of the cōscience, hath respect vnto the obedience that is due vnto the authority, M^r Caluin in his freedome of the Conscience, hath reference to that estimation we should haue of the things, not to thinke otherwise of them then of things indifferent, though commanded by authority: to which purpose M^r. Bucer also speaketh, has etsi seruare & omittere etiam extra scandalum licet, tamē si ex proternia aut petulantia quis ordinem, publica auto∣ritate constitutum contemnat & turbet, non leuiter peccat. These Ceremonies though it be lawful to obserue or o∣mitt, where no scandall is offered, yet if any man vpon frowardnes or wantonnes, shal cōtemne, or disquiet the order, that is established by publike authority, he sinneth greiuously. And let this suffice for answere to your exam∣ple of the brasen Serpent, and second point of difference.

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

The former of these, That the bread in the supper is warranted in the Scripture, we know right wel: to the latter that the signe of the Crosse is not warranted we an∣swere first, that it is no where in the Scripture forbidden. Secondly, Non requiritur necessariò, vt in sacris litteris expressam mentionem exhibeamus, singularū rerūquas v∣surpamus. Thirdly, that though in expresse words it be not warranted, yet virtually, fundamentally, and in suo principio, it is even in the Scriptures cōprehended. The principle, and foundation that J meane, is, that generall precept of the Apostle concerning things indifferent. Let

all things be done decently and in order, in the generallity wherof this particular is contained, as by the deduction before mentioned in the answere, to the Minor of your maine Syllogisme, may plainly appeare; Lastly concern∣ing Bellarmins insinuation, that the Crosse is grounded &c: we stande not vpon it, nor build our opinion vpon any proofe of his. Yet, as it is certaine that the materiall Crosse, wherevpon Christ suffered, was shaddowed by the pole, whervpon the brasen Serpent was lifted vp (for so our Savior himselfe doth resemble it) so I see not what inconvenience can follow, if we should say with S^t. Au∣gustine, and S^t. Cyprian, that evē this our immateriall cō∣signation, did take his first beginning and occasion in the primitiue Church, vpon the signing of the Israelites dore posts, with the bloud of the Pascall Lambe: or by the sig∣ning of thē that mourne in their foreheads with the mark of the letter T. or by Iacobs blessing of Ephraim and Ma∣nasses with his hands a crosse, wherby as Musculus obser∣veth, Adumbrabatur mysterium Crucis, in quo est omnis verae benedictionis fons & origo. But al this we yeeld vnto you, and embrace with you Tertullians iudgement, that this is established by no other warrant, then by the au∣thoritie of the Church, the weight wherof you haue suffi∣ciently hard of before. But now let vs heare the second part of your answere, to our first obiection.

Notes

• 2. Pet. 1.4.
• Beza ep. 2. circa med.
• Bezae ep. 24. ad 5. 6. 7. & 8.
• Jbid. m▪ 9.
• Hemmingius in Syurag cap. de adiaphonū. 9
• Tert. Apol. c. 2.
• Just. Mart. A∣pol. 2. non lodge à fine.
• Ier. 3.1.
• 2. Cor. 6.18. Eph. 3.22.
• Rom. 8.7.
• Aug epi 50. ad Bonif. comitem.
• Bucer. in script. Angl pag. 154.
• Wolphius in hunc locum.
• Aug. de civit. Dei lib. 10. c. 8.
• 2 King 18.4.
• Dist 63. cap. Quia Sancta.
• Non temere, nec subinde, nec levibus de cau∣sis ad novatio∣nem est decurrē dum Calv. Inst. lib 4 cap. 10.
• Beza Respon. ad Franc. Baldvin. pag. 227.
• Ierem. 13:19. Ierem. 8.2.
• Bucer in script. Angl. pag. 454.
• Ioh. 3.14.
• Beza epist. 24. ad 5. 6. 7. & 8. Num. 9.
• Calv. Jnsi. lib. ••. c. 10 par. 6. 31
• Bucer in script. Angl. pag. 454.
• Pet. Mart. in Ep 4. ad Hop∣perum.
• 1. Cor. 14.40.
• Ioh. 3.14.
• Aug. de catech. rudibus cap. 20. Cyprian ad De∣••••et. cap. 19.
• Exod. 12.7.
• Ezech. 9.4. Gen. 48.14.
• Wolf. Muscul in Gen. cap. 48.