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.

Now we come to the third general part of this Treatise, wherin the Treatiser endeuoreth to answere certaine ob∣iections of ours, in defence of the Crosse: Our first ob∣iection he setteth downe in these words.

The first obiection. 8. Sect.

The signe of the Crosse in the first institution was free from superstition and Idolatrie: and if the abuse which grewe after be remoued, why should it not recouer his aun∣cient vse, and indifferency, like as the bread in the Lords supper, which the Papists do religiously adore?

The Treatisers answere to the obiection.

There is great difference &c.

I expected the Treatiser in his answere to our obiecti∣ons, framed by himselfe, would haue made every thinge plaine and euident: so as a man at the first sight, might perceaue the answere fitted and applied to the obiection in every point: But some thing there was: either hast, or Jgnorance, not knowing how to answere, or Conscientia fraudis, or J knowe not what, that would not suffer him to speake directly, nor to exemplifie his allegations, but make him wind himselfe every way, and so to double, & huddle things together, that my selfe J confesse, and J beleeue few men else, can find in him, Quid cui respo dea∣tur, what is answered vnto which; as to any man that di∣ligently marketh, what he saith to the first obiection, may plainly appeare. By which meanes, though he hath put me to a double labour, yet J will endeuor in my Replie,

both to fitt his answeres to the obiection, and make them stronger; so, that the indifferent Reader shall perceaue, that no wrong is offered him; and yet with all J wil so dis∣couer his shifts, & windings, as al mē J hope that come not with that obstinate resolution of, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, shall rest fully satisfied, & contented. Now therfore to his answere.

His answere consisteth of three parts. The first wherof is of those differences, which are betweene that, which God hath created, and commanded, and that which man hath ordained: whereby he would implie, as I take it, that the reason is not like, why the Crosse recovered out of the abuse should returne to his ancient integrity; & why the bread in the Lords supper, reclaimed from Popish a∣doration should be againe restored to his right vse.

The second part of his answer, is of a double vse of the Crosse: Civill and Religious, whereby he would imply, as I thinke, that the civill vse may be restored to his ancient indifferency, but the religious vse cannot.

The third part of his answer, is cōcerning our abusing of the sign of the Crosse, in the Church of England, who, he saith, retaine it among vs with opinion very supersti∣tious, and erroneous; and vse it otherwise, then the ancient fathers did: Each of these I will consider by it selfe, in their several order: The first therefore hee delivereth in these words.

Treatisers answere to the 1. Obiect.

There is great difference betweene that which God hath created, and commanded, and that which Man hath ordai∣ned, for the one is necessary, and no abuse can alter the na∣ture of it; the other indifferent, and by abuse may become vnlawfull: and therefore Hezechia did worthily breake

the brasen Serpent, not seeking to redresse the abuse of it: Nowe howsoever Bellarmine woulde insinuate, that the Crosse is founded on Scripture, yet the weaknes of his ar∣guments, doe bewray the vnsoūdnes of the matter; & ther∣fore Tertullians iudgment, is to be preferred, which plain∣ly saith,* 1.1 that there is no warrant in Scripture for it; Ho∣rum inquit si legem postules, scripturam nullam inve∣nies, traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, consuetudo con∣firmatrix, fides observatrix.

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,* 1.2 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,* 1.3 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.

* 1.4Res 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.

* 1.5Nam 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?* 1.6 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,* 1.7 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,* 1.8 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,* 1.9 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 〉,* 1.10 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,* 1.11 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:* 1.12 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.* 1.13 Nemo hanc au∣toritatem

publicam,* 1.14 & 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;* 1.15 (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;* 1.16 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.* 1.17 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,* 1.18 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?* 1.19 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,* 1.20 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 〉;* 1.21 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:* 1.22 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,* 1.23 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.* 1.24 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,* 1.25 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,* 1.26 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,* 1.27 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,* 1.28 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,* 1.29 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,* 1.30 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,* 1.31 wherby as Musculus obser∣veth,* 1.32 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.

Treatise. 9. Sect.

Now it is farther to bee noted, that a double vse of the Crosse is mentioned in antiquity: one civill, & the other re∣ligious, against the former wee doe not dispute, yeelding all reverence to those Christians, which by that note shewed their reioicing and glory in that, which the heathen coun∣ted their shame. But now, that abuse hath turned the Image and signe of the Crosse, into an Idoll, it seemeth therby to be

made execrable. For Gideons Ephod being first a ciuill mo∣nument of victory, when the people went a whoring after it, was it lawfull for the Magistrat, to erect in the Taber∣nacle or Sinagogue, though not the same yet the like, both in name & forme to any religious vse? VVould it haue suf∣ficed to haue said, this is not the same Ephod, that Israel maketh an Idoll of, neither is it set here to bee worshipped (for your brethren doe grievously sin therin) but only to keep in minde the great victorie that God by Gedeon gaue to Israell? Right so the Crosse vsed by the ancients to shevve that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, being meer∣ly civill, and yet expressing a most Christian resolution, ha∣ving bin abused, yea continuing to be worshipped, both in Imagine & in Signo, It seemeth that this filth hath made it vnfit, on any pretence of restoring it to his ancient vse, to be annexed to the holy things of the Sanctuary. Especial∣ly while there are so many Papistes, that superstitiously a∣buse it among vs. Now for the religious vse of the Crosse, by the ancients, it was never free from sin and superstition, as afterwards is shewed, and if it were, yet it being an hu∣mane ordinance and now not only abused to Idolatrie, but becōming it selfe a most abominable Idol, no water cā clēse it, nor any pretext purifie it, for the holy seruice of Iehouah

Replie to the second part of the Treatisers answere.

The Treatisers maine forces are spent already, in the first part of his answere, All these things that follow are nothing else but, leuis armaturae milites, his light horsmē and florishes, to make the number of his argumentes seeme the greater. Jn this Section he telleth vs of a two∣fold vse of the Crosse mentioned in antiquity, one Ciuill, the other Religious. This we acknowledge to be true. The

vse was held of thē, as a Trophee, & publike Monument, of that great victory which God gaue to Constantine a∣gainst Maxentius. For which cause Constantine, at the first made the signe of the Crosse in his imperiall banner, stamped it vpon his Coines, graued it in his statues, & I∣mages, and in the armor of his Soldiers: And the like hath bin vsed by all Christian Princes ever since. Secondly, as an ornamēt in story, or outward beautifiing of any thing: Thirdly, as an outward marke of distinction frō the hea∣then Jdolaters, wherby in their common meetings, and intercourse of life, they made it knowne, as well to the Jnfidels, as to one another, that they were Christians, & no waies ashamed of the Crosse of Christ.

The religious vse they made of the Crosse, consisted more privatly, in a mutual reference towards thēselues, and was frequented, First in their actions of cōmon life, still to excite their devotion, to admonish them of their duties, and put them in minde of Christ crucified. Mu∣niantur aures,* 1.33 ne audiant edicta feralia. Muniantur oculi ne videant detestanda simulacra. Muniatur frons, vt signū Dei incolume seruetur. Muniaturos, vt dominū suū lingua victrix tucatur: as Cypriā speaketh. ad omnē progressū at{que} promotū,* 1.34 &c. as Tertullian declareth, They vsed to mark their foreheads with the sign of the Crosse, at every mo∣ving, and stirring of their bodies, as they went out, as they came home, as they put on their cloathes, pulled on their shooes, and as they washed; at table, and at can∣dle-lighting, going to bed, and sitting downe, & general∣ly in every particular action of their life. Secondly, they v∣sed the signe of the Crosse, in the Sacramēt of Baptisme, as we doe now, for a present admonition, and memoratiue token, continually to put vs in minde of our duty & pro∣fession,

which in that Sacrament we vndertake. J haue therfore the more particularly mentioned these diffe∣rences, that J may the better expresse this point to the vnderstanding of the Reader.

Concerning therfore the ciuill vse of the Crosse, a∣mong the Auncients, the Treatiser deliuereth vs these oracles.

1 That he will not dispute against the ciuill vse, & yet he tells vs, that now by abuse, it is turned to an Idoll.

2 He yeelds al reuerence to those Christians, which by that note shewed their reioycing, and glory, in that which the Heathen counted their shame: Yet withall he saith, Jt is made execrable.

3 He saith, the Auncients, to shew that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, expressed therby a most Christian resolution: But withal he addeth, By the filth which it hath since contracted, it is made vnfit on any pretence to be restored to his auncient vse, & to be an∣nexed to the holy things of the Sanctuary.

Touching these his speeches, as we willingly embrace that, wherin he commendeth the Auncients, (which is a thing very rare among that generatiō) so we would al∣so free our selues, that tread only in their steps, and vse it no worse then they did, from those imputations of making it an Idoll, execrable, and a filth, which the Trea∣tiser doth lay vpon vs, if not as Authors, yet at the least as Abettors.

And therfore leauing their religious vse, to his place, because the Treatiser speaketh these things only of the Ciuill vse: J would faine learne, which of those Ciuil vses mentioned before, we haue thus greiuously abused. Jf he say the first vse in Banners, Coines, Statues,* 1.35 Armor &

such like, or the second, in matter of History, or outward ornament, or beautifiing of any thing, himselfe is farre more faulty, then any of vs. For of the former he hath yeelded before, that in Princes Banners, Coronations, Coyne, Crownes, or in any other Ciuill respect, it may haue a lawful vse: yea, though it be apparantly an Idoll. And touching the latter he maketh no question, but that it may be made and retained, though it be of an Image, euen such an Image as is Idolatrously worshipped. Nei∣ther can J possibly see, how we haue made an Idoll, exe∣cration and filth of their thirde ciuill vse, wherby they made it a note of distinction, from the Infidells. For that is the very point, for the which, in this place he so com∣mendeth the Auntients, yeelding al reuerence to those Christians &c. & againe, They haue expressed a most Christiā resolutiō: &c. So that except the Treatiser haue some other Ciuil vses, of the Auntients in store, that we know not of, we cannot be persuaded, that we retaine any Civill vse of theirs as an Idoll, execrable, and a filth, either in the Image, or in the signe.

But yet he proueth it by the example of Gideons E∣phod. For Gideons Ephod, saith hee, being first &c. J take the force of his reason to be this.

That good ciuill vse of any thing that is abused, and continueth to be worshipped both in Imagine, & in sig∣no: is made an Idoll, execrable, and a filth. This he prou∣eth by the example of Gideons Ephod.

But the good ciuill vse of the Crosse among the Aun∣tients, is abused & cōtinueth to be worshipped, both in Imagine et in signo. This he taketh to be proued by the practise of so many Papists, as do superstitiously abuse it among vs. Ergo,

The good ciuill vse of the Crosse among the Aunti∣ents is made an Idoll, execrable, and a filth.

The maior I grant to be true, not simplicitèr, but secū∣dum quid that is, only there, and among them only, that doe abuse the good civill vse, and continue worshipping of it, both in Imagine, and in signo. Jn them, and to them it is indeede an Idoll, execrable, & a filth. But what is that to others, that neither abuse it nor worshippe it?* 1.36 To the cleane, saith the Apostle, all things are cleane, but to them that are defiled, and vnbeleeving, nothing is cleane, but e∣ven their mindes, & consciences are defiled. Shall the sins of one man, thinke you, be laid vpon another?* 1.37 God hath promised no. Anima quae peccaverit ipsa morietur, The soule that sinneth that shall die; The sonne shal not beare the iniquity of the father, nether shal the father bear the iniquity of the sonne. Your perpetuall harping on one string, frō secūdum quid, to simpliciter, maketh that your musicke is nothing pleasant, as J haue tolde you often before.

Touching the proofe of your Maior, by the example of Gideons Ephod, which you say, beeing first a civill mo∣nument of victory, &c. J answere, that it was not only a civill monument, and therefore your cōparing of it with the civill vses of the signe of the Crosse, among the An∣cients, is vnfit.

And that it was not only a civill monument, besides S^t. Augustines authority,* 1.38 the very name and nature of the E∣phod, which he made, doth plainly teach. For what else is an Ephod, but that most glorious & beautifull vpper gar∣ment, which the high Priest ware in the celebration of divine sacrifices?* 1.39 Potuisset carmen vt Barac & Debora cō∣scribere, vel columnam erigere aut quippiam simile. If hee

intended a civil monument only, why made he choice of an Ephod? Jf besides the civil remembrance of his victo∣ry, he also intended the service of God (as S^t. Augustine iudgeth) thē was it not only for a civil monument. Now that the service of God, was also in his intention, not on∣ly the name of an Ephod,* 1.40 Quo nomine omnia possunt intelli∣gi, quae constituit Gedeon in sua civitate, velut ad colendū Deum, similia tabernaculo Dei, ea locutione quae significat à parte totum, propter excellentiam vestis Sacerdotalis, By which name all things may be vnderstood that Gedeon e∣rected in his cittie, as to worship God, like the taberna∣cle of God, by that manner of speech called Synecdoche, which by a part doth signifie the whole, for the excellen∣cie of the Priests garment) but the scripture also seemeth to cōvince.* 1.41 For there it is said, That al Jsrael went a who∣ring after it. And that it was the destruction of Gedeon & his house How could it be to his destruction if he meant it not to the service of God?

Gedeons sin then was, not that hee erected a civill mo∣numēt only,* 1.42 as you saie, but Quod extra Dei tabernaculū, fecit aliquid simile, vbi coleretur Deus. But because with∣out the Tabernacle of God hee made some like thinges, where God should be worshipped: which was plainly a∣gainst the will of God, who had appointed his worship, to bee frequented no where, but where the Arke of the Covenant was, which at that time was in Silo.

2. J say that there is no iust comparison betweene Ge∣deons Ephod, and the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme. For the end of Gedeons Ephod was, either for Gods seruice, (& thē it was faulty, as is said before,) & so is not the Crosse with vs: or else (to make the best of it, and to graunt you your owne interpretation) it was, that the memorie of

Gods benefit towards him in his victory, might not be a∣bolished, and then the signe, which hee vsed, was not fit, not agreeable to the matter. For,* 1.43 Deus non mandaverat in lege, vt fieret Ephod in istum vsum, sed tantum vt sa∣cerdotes cum sacrificaturi essent, illud induerent: Signo igi∣tur minus dextero & opportuno vsus est. God did not cō∣mande in the law, that an Ephod should bee made to this vse, but only that the Priests should weare it, when they were sacrificing; wherefore hee vsed a signe not so com∣modious, nor so fit. But our signe of the Crosse in Bap∣tisme, is most fit, and natural, and agreeable to the actiō, to signifie the end, which we intende thereby, which is not so much to imprint a memorie of Gods benefite to∣wards vs, as to remember & admonish our selues of that dutie, which in Baptisme wee promised vnto God.

3. To your questiō. VVas it lawful for the Magistrate, &c. I may as wel aske you. Was it not lawful for the Ma∣gistrate so to doe? Or if that Ephod were vnlawful, was no Ephod to be vsed in Gods service afterwards?

4. As touching, that you say; The signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, among the Ancients was meerely civil, I an∣swere, that you haue heard before, that it was some waie religious, though they reposed no religion in it. For those vses that they made of it, To be a signe of their professiō of Christian religion, To bee a token that they were not ashamed of the Crosse of Christ. To be a testimony evē before Jdolaters; That they put their hope & cōfidence in Christ crucified: are rather to be counted religious, in my vnderstanding, then only and meerely civil, as you cō∣ceiue of them.

Your minor proposition offendeth in the same capti∣on that your maior doth. For say that the good civil vse of

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the Crosse is abused & worshipped by the Papists, what is that to vs?* 1.44 Indifferentia non possunt illos, qui pura since∣ra{que} agunt mente, & conscientia, contaminare, why I pray you may not we vse that well, which they vsed ill? As wel as an Orthodox writer may vse the same Logick & Rhe∣toricke, to proue the truth, which Heretickes doe to op∣pugne the truth?* 1.45 Or an honest Souldier vse those weapōs in defence of his coūtry, which Rebels and Traytors vse for the destruction and desolation thereof, as was before alleadged out of S^t. Augustine. Your proofe holdeth wel for the materiall signe, and for the superstitious conceipt of the Crosse in Baptisme, but that they adored them as an Idoll, remaineth yet to be proved.

Cōcerning the religious vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, he saith two things.

First that among the Ancients, it was never free frō sin, and superstition: Secondly if it were, yet being a hu∣mane ordinance, and abused, & made a most abhomina∣ble Idoll, no water can clense it &c.

Touching the first, which of their religious vses doe you meane? Jf that which they holde in their actions of common life; we neither commend it, nor condemne it; we condemne it not, because we suppose it may be well vsed, when it is done, only to excite, and put vs in minde of Christ crucified, without any conceite of vertue or meritt, or power therin reposed, as we verily thinke the Auncients vsed it;* 1.46 Qui mane surgens & vesperi cubitam vadens, signat se cruce, in signum Christianae militiae, con∣tra Satanam, nō est culpandus, modo absit superstitio. We commend it not, because we knowe how apt the com∣mon people are, to be led away with that misconceipt, that so long hath clouen vnto it: And yet we cā no waies

allow of yours, nor of your Patriarch T. C. iudgment,* 1.47 wherwith be censureth it. That the Lord hath left a mark of his curse vpon it, wherby it might be perceiued to come out of the forge of mans braine &c. This censure of his is too perēptory, & offendeth not only against the rule of Charity, that bids vs thinke the best of them, whom we knowe not, especially of the Auntients; but of Iustice also: In that he laieth the fault, of superstitious succee∣ding ages, vppon the religious and godly Fathers, that were before them. For why might not that be without abuse at the first, which we are certaine,* 1.48 was greatly a∣bused afterwards, aswel as the sepulchers of Martirs, & reliques of Saints, and the Images of Christ, and his A∣postles, al which had a good vse at the first, and yet af∣terwards where occasions of hainous Idolatry and su∣perstition.

Yf you meane their religious vse of the signe of the Crosse in the Sacrament of Baptism, we vtterly disclaime your sentence, and doubt not but that it was free from sinn, and superstition, both in the Auntients, and in our Church. And to this your rash and inconsiderate con∣demning of the Auntient Fathers, and by them vs, we oppose the more temperate and indifferent opinions, of your owne freinds; who by how much they were more learned then your selfe, so much the more modest, and respectiue they were of Antiquity, then are you. And because you shal not thinke, that J wil peruert or falsifie their meanings by my interpretation, J wil set downe their speaches in their owne words, as J find them in their writings.

M^r Beza doth both grant, by way of Cōcession,* 1.49 that there might be a good vse of it in the Primitiue Church

Fuerit sanè tempus, quo fuit aliquis istius signaculi, aduer∣sus Christi crucifixi contemptores vsus: sit etiam diu et libentèr a Christianis vsurpatus, pro externa verae religi∣onis professione,* 1.50 & also in expresse words affirme, Crucis consignationem, cōstat initio fuisse apertam Christianis∣mi professionem.

Hemingius deliuering certaine obseruations & con∣ditions, how the signe of the Crosse may in these daies be wel vsed in the Church, concludeth with this testi∣mony of Antiquity.* 1.51 His rationibus existimo vsos esse signo crucis Augustinum, Epiphanium, Athanasium, qui multū signaculo crucis tribuerunt, propter significationē et admonitionem.

Bucers testimony to this purpose is most famous, that it was,* 1.52 vsus in Ecclesia antiquissimi, admodum simplex, et praesentis admonitionis crucis Christi.

* 1.53Pezelius speaketh more plainly in their commenda∣tion, Antiqui hoc signo profitebantur, quòd Christiani es∣sent quód crucis Christi eos non puderet, quód in Christo spem, et fiduciam omnem collocatam haberent.

* 1.54Daneus yet goeth further, and saith Finis propter quē Patres laudes istas signo crucis Christi tribuunt, sanctus et pius est: Patres enim illas laudes scribunt de signo cru∣cis quatenus est, et erat confessionis Christianorum intre∣pidae de Christo testimonium, liberum, apertum, mani∣festum, licet illis propterea minarentur Ethnici panas grauissimas. Erat igitur huius signi inter Ethnicos vsur∣patio, confessio de Christo crucifixo pulcherrima. &c.

M^r. Perkins not only excuseth it from superstition in the Ancients,* 1.55 but also declareth, as Daneus did, wherin it was iustly commended by the fathers. His wordes are these. Crux non fuit à veteribus adorata, multò minus la∣triâ

adorata: veneratio tantùm ei tributa fuit, id est v∣sus cum reuerentia, eam{que} vsurparunt in testimonium fidei suae, simul{que} laudant quatenus fuit signum intrepidae fidei in Christum crucifixum ante ethnicos, etiam dum illi paenas minarentur.

Zanchius speaking of the vse of this signe in Constan∣tines time, freeth al the former ages from superstition,* 1.56 Huc vs{que} nihil superstitionis habebat signum illud.

Lastly Goulartius speaketh more plainly in this point,* 1.57 then any other, Quamuis veteres Christiani (saith he) externo signo crucis vsi sunt, idtamen fuit sine aliqua su∣perstitione; et doctrina de Christi merito, ab errore, qui postea irrepsit, pios seruavit immunes. And in another place. Tertulliani saeculo, et aliquot sequentibus,* 1.58 Christi∣anicum Ethnicis Christum crucifixum deridentibus per∣mixti, vt doctrinae salutaris, quae in Christū nos credere iubet, se minime pudere testaerentur, digitis in aere forma∣bant 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 pro∣fession of Christianity, as M^r. Beza speaketh, Or that S^t. 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 sim∣ple, and of present admonition of the Crosse of Christ, as Bucer testifieth: to my vnderstanding doth plainly des∣cribe, a most Christian and religious vse of it, among the Auntients, and vtterly discouer your slaunderous ac∣cusation.

But those other that tel you particularly, wherin it was wel vsed, as Pezel. M. Perk. & by a proposition most ma∣nifestly

contradictory vnto yours, say, it had a most holy and godly end, as Daneus, and that it was without any su∣perstition in the Auntients, as Goulartius, & Zanchius doe, They J say plainly free it from sinn and superstitiō, and with a contrary testimony in flatt termes, conuince the insolency, and audaciousnes of your false asseue∣ration.

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 I∣doll, 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 de∣file 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 cā 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, defi••e the Innocent, nor the pollution, and abhomi∣nation of Popish Idolatry, cleaue vnto the true Protestāt, 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 re∣tained among vs,* 1.59 with opinion very superstitious, & erro∣neous. 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 Bap¦tisme? A conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists, then learned Christians to assent vnto. Neither do we vse it as the An∣cients did, for Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostome and o∣thers, as is apparant at those times did consecrate the e∣lements 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 wa∣shed, that the soule may bee purged, the flesh is annoin∣ted, 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 spi∣rit 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 mētiō the signing of the faith∣full, but it may as well be referred to confirmatiō, 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 Antoni∣num & Tertull. de Baptismo, & de corona militis, doe des∣cribe the forme of Baptisme, vsed in those times, and yet make no mention of the Crosse therein: which in all likely∣hood they would not haue omitted, if it had bin vsed there∣in; 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 accusa∣tions, 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 haerese∣os nemixem decetesse patientem. Jt becommeth no ma to hold patience, when he is accused of heresie. The Treati∣ser belike, meant to trie our patience, when he burdened vs with opinion of the Crosse both erroneous and supersti∣tious. 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 l••arned men that made the Canon, was as vn∣likely to erre, as either the Treatiser or his adherents. But whē vnto his accusation of error, he addeth the most hei∣nous 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 ordināce 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 ei∣ther

to the one or to the other, it were indeede not onlie a conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists, then learned Christi∣ans, 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 Sacra∣ment? J answere, no: For first the Sacrament doth more then dedicate only, for it really giueth that which it promi∣seth, & is to the child that, which it doth signifie. Cōtrari∣wise, the Crosse, neither giueth any thing to the child, nor promiseth, nor is any other thing, then an outward Cere∣mony 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 signi∣fie, to sanctifie or to Consecrate, but somtimes to appro∣priate, to appoint to some special vse, to declare and tes∣tifie, that the thing is assigned, addicted, and called out to such, for such a seueral purpose, office person, or ser∣uice. 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 Dedi∣cated 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 af∣firmatiue and negatiue, very sufficient to declare, and make manifest vnto al reasonable men, that the Church of England doeth not attribute any sanctifiing, or con∣secrating 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 de∣dicate 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 o∣peration 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, wher∣by 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,* 1.60 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 cō∣secrated, 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,* 1.61 and specially S^t. Augu¦stine teacheth vs so to say. Catechumenos, saith he, secun∣dum quendam modum suum per signum Christi, & orationē manus impositionis, puto sanctificari. J thinke the Cate∣chumeni 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 S^t. 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 sig∣nifie: As may appeare at large by the testimony of Gou∣lartius, Consecrare panem & vinum,* 1.62 est ea divinis ac sa∣cris vsibus destinare, &c. But our Canon of purpose de∣clined those words, which might any waies breed offēce

vnto the weake brethren, and made choice of this harm∣lesse and innocent word, Dedicated, which favorably vn∣derstood, giueth no offence, and is farr from al such dan∣ger of error & superstition, as the Treatiser woulde make the ignorant reader to beleeue.

Your second accusation laieth two greiuous Corrup∣tions 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 e∣lements 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 An∣tients 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 al∣so receiue those defectes and imperfections, which suc∣ceeding

ages brought in afterwardes? But this is no way agreeable to reasō: I rather think it better to follow that coūsel that S^t. Hierom giueth, of reading Origens works,* 1.63 and to apply it to this matter of the Ceremonies of the Auntients, Vt bona eorum eligamus, vitemus{que} cōtraria, iuxta Apostolum dicentem, omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete &c. That we choose their good things,* 1.64 and a∣void 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 sto∣macke, seeme vnto me to be vnder that curse of the Pro∣phet, woe be vnto them, that call good euill, and evil good,* 1.65 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 per∣swaded for my part, (For J am not willing to conceiue any thing amisse of those blessed, and excellent instru∣ments of Gods glory, that by any reasonable constructi∣on of their words may be salued) because they did it without offence, in respect of others, and without opini∣on 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 Ele∣ments were consecrated then any cause of their conse∣cration. And that this was their conceit of the signe of the Crosse, is most manifestly apparant by those words of S^t. Augustine.* 1.66 Sanctificatio Cathechumeni, si non fue∣rit 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 som∣thing els. So the same S^t. Augustine in that place whē he saith, Cathechumenos secundum quendam modum suū puto consecrarï per signum Christi, doth not rest there, & say only,* 1.67 Signū Christi, but ioineth thereunto, et oratio∣nem manus impositionis. and so S^t. Cyprian, whose testi∣mony you cite afterwards, saith indeed, Operationis au∣toritas in figura crucis, omnibus sacramentis largitur ef∣fectum but withal he addeth. (which you thought wis∣dome 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 Ce∣remony now, these reasons induce me to cōceiue. First, The people are now more prone to error, and miscon∣ceit, then they were in those times. Secōdly, some things, and among others this, were more fit for those times, then for these.* 1.68 Distinguenda sunt tempora, saith Goular∣tius. and before him S^t. Augustine, and then it wil easi∣ly appear, that that may be done wel at one time, which

cannot be done wel at another.* 1.69 Mutat â quippe temporis causa, quod rectè ante factum fuerit, ita mutari vera ra∣tio plerum{que} flagitat, vt cum aliqui dicant, non recte fieri, simutetur, contra veritas clamet, rectè non fieri nisi mute∣turiquia vtrum{que} tum erit rectum, sierit pro temporū va∣rietate diuersum. As in a child many things are permit∣ed 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 Aun∣tients, which cannot be wel done by vs, now in the mā∣hood, 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 a∣gainst 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 dange∣rous, 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 trouble∣some to good consciences, and burdensome to the Church, as that learned Bishop speaketh,* 1.70 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 fore∣head at all, but referred that vnto the Bishops confirmati∣on, 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 with∣in the compasse of the first three hundred yeares: vvhich by al men is reputed the purest age, &, as it were, the mai∣denhead, 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, e∣ven from such as lived with the Apostles thēselues, haue receaved this consignatiō of the childs forehead in Bap∣tisme, as one of the most ancient Ceremonies of christi∣anity. 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 interpreta∣tion, then they doe apparantly signifie, & al men hither∣to haue made of them.

* 1.71Dionisius commonly called Areopagita (whether tru∣ly or falsly J wil not discusse, but certainly a very ancient writer,) maketh often mention, of signing the party that

is baptised, with the sign of the Crosse, And to expresse that he meaneth the Crosse in Baptisme, he calleth the Sacrament of Baptisme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Sacramēt or seale hauing the forme of a Crosse; And describing the māner how it was done, he saith, Imponit (minister) eius capiti manum, cōsignans{que} illum, sacerdotibus mādat, virum susceptorem{que} describant. This authority must needs be vnderstood of Baptisme, which he there de∣scr••beth, calling it Sacramentum illuminationis, and can by no interpretation be referred either to the Element, as is manifest by the words, Imponit eius capiti manum, consignans{que} illum, nor to the Bishopps confirmation.

The like is to be thought of that place of Iustin Mar∣tyr, who florished about the yeare of Christ 140.* 1.72 Dex∣trâ manu in nomine Christi consignamus eos, qui hoc signo egent: where, first al men vnderstand him, to meane the consignation of the Crosse. Secondly, that he cannot meane it of confirmation, it is more then probable, because hee mentioneth only dexteram manum, whereas confirmatiō requireth imposition of both; vt adumbratio septiformis gratiae melius significaretur, that the acumbration of the seauen-fold grace, might thereby be the better signified. Thirdly, it cannot be vnderstoode of the Element of Bap∣tisme, for his wordes are consignamus, &c. qui hoc signo e∣gent. importing the persons, and not the Element. Nei∣ther lastly can it be referred to that vse of the Crosse, which they obserue in actions of common life, because in that, euery man did signe him selfe, but in this he spea∣keth of such as were signed by other men.

The next that J will remember after him, is Origen (for Tertullians testimony, because the Treatiser al∣leadgeth it against vs, shalbe cōsidered afterwards) who

liued in the same age with Tertullian, though somwhat after him, about the yeare of our Lord 220. his words are these.* 1.73 Vt non exprobremur ab insipiente, cōvertamus nos ab omnibus iniquitatibus nostris, ne deprehendens in nobis maculas peccatorum, id est, suae voluntatis insignia, exprobret, et dicat, ecce hic Christianus dicebatur, et sig∣no, hristi signabatur in fronte, meas autem voluntates, et meachirographa gerebat in corde. Ecce iste, qui mihi et o∣peribus meis renunciavit in Baptismo, meis rursū operi∣bus se inseruit meis{que} legibus paruit. This is an evident testimony against the Treatiser, mentioning both Bap∣tisme, and the signe of the Crosse, and the forehead wher∣on it was signed.

From Origen J come to S^t. Cyprian, who was famous in the Church about the yeare 250. whose testimonies against the Treatisers assertion, as J wil not take vpō me to repeate thē al, (for they are very many,) so it cānot be either misliked or suspected, if Jacquaint the reader with some few: especially seeing the Treatiser himselfe doeth acknowledge Cyprian to be the first,* 1.74 that maketh menti∣on of the Crosse in Baptism. Jn his treatise de vnitate Ec∣clesiae, he hath these words. Ozias Rex leprae varietate in fronte maculatus est, caparte corporis notatus offenso Do∣mino, vbi signantur, qui dominum promerentur. Againe, to Demetrian Proconsull of Africke,* 1.75 he speaketh thus. E∣vadere eos solos posse, quirenati & signo Christi signati fu∣erint,* 1.76 and a little after, Hunc (Christum) si fieri potest, se∣quamur omnes, huius sacramento & signo consecremur. In all which places,* 1.77 as also in his fifty sixt Epistle ad Thiba∣ritanos,* 1.78 and his third booke Testimon. ad Quirinum, not only Pamelius who may seeme somewhat partial for the Crosse, but Goulartius also, whom the Treatiser cannot

suspect, doe acknowledge that he speaketh of the Crosse in Baptisme.

Lactantius that lived after Cyprian about some 50. yeares, and flourished in the beginning of the yeare 300 speaketh much to the same purpose. Extendit Christus in passione manus suas,* 1.79 orbem{que} dimensus est ut iam tum ostē∣deret, ab ortu solis vs{que} ad occasum, magnum populum ex omnibus linguis, & tribubus congregatū, sub alas suas esse venturum, signum{que} illud maximum at{que} sublime, in fron∣tibus suis suscepturum.

After Lactantius liued S^t. Basil the great in the Church of Caesarea Cappadociae, in the yeare 370. or there abouts, who rehearsing the traditiōs vsed in his time,* 1.80 reckoneth this in the first place. Vt signo crucis eos signemus, qui in Christo spem suam posuerunt.

The last of this age, is S^t. Augustine, whose glorious labours lightened the Christian world, about the end of the yeare 300. To rehearse his many testimonies vvere an endlesse worke, and therefore J will content my selfe with two only,* 1.81 the former in his fourth booke de fide & Symbolo ad Catechumenos, which he beginneth with these words, Per sacratissimum crucis signum, vos suscepit in vtero, sancta mater Ecclesia: and the latter in his exposi∣tion of the 30. Psalme.* 1.82 Non sine causa signum suū Chri∣stus in fronte nobis figi voluit, tanquam in sede pudoris, ne Christi opprobrio Christianus erubescat. To the which purpose he speaketh in Psalm. 141. vs{que} adeo de cruce non erubesco vt non in occulto loco habeam crucē Christi,* 1.83 sed infronte portem, &c. To which place J refer the reader as also to his 53. and 118. Treatise, vpon S^t. Iohn: & his 181. sermon de tempore, and diuers other places. So that these proofs of the Auntients duly considered, we

may be bould to pronounce against the Treatiser, that the Auntients did vse to signe the Childs forehead in Baptisme,* 1.84 and to affirme with M^r. Perkins, Signum crucis per multa saecula fuit in sacramēti administratio∣ne, simplex ritus; and with Pezelius. vetus est haec Cere∣monia ab ipsis incunabilis Ecclesiae Christianae vsurpata.

The collection therfore of the Treatiser is vaine, whē he concludeth after this sort.

They that in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Bap∣tisme, doe not consecrate the Element, which the Aunti∣ents did, & doe crosse the Childs forehead, which the Aun∣tients did not doe not vse the signe of the Crosse, in Baptis∣me as the Auntients did.

But the Church of England in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, doth not consecrate the Element, which the Auntients did, and doth crosse the Childs fore∣head which the Auntients did not. Ergo.

The Church of England doth not vse the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme as the Auntients did.

For first, touching the forme, it is a Sophisme com∣pounded of all manner of Fallacies. that which is most apparant is, Fallacia compositionis: for ex propositione ve∣râ in sensu composito, infert conclusionem falsam in sen∣su dinisio. Touching the matter, it is meerly false. For in the Maior it doth assume, that the Auntients did not vse to signe the Childs forehead, which is refuted by their alleadged authorities.

Secondly he doth conclude the abuse of one Ceremo∣ny, by the Non vse of another, which hath neither rela∣tion vnto it, nor dependency on it, nor both are ordained to the same end: & therfore the one cannot necessarily inferre the negation or affirmation of the other: as if

with lesse adoe. and in fewer circumstances, he should haue concluded thus.

• ...They that in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Bap∣tisme, doe not vse consecration of the Element at all doe not vse the consignation of the forehead well, and as the Auntients did.
• But the Church of England in the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, doth not vse consecratiō of the E∣lement at all. Ergo.
• ...The Church of England doth not vse the consignation of the forehead rightly, and as the Auntients did.

The not vsing of consecration at al, is no reason why the consignation of the forehead may not be vsed right∣ly. For though both agree in this, that they both be con∣signations, and are both vsed in the Sacrament of Baptis∣me, yet they differ in this, that they are distinct Ceremo∣nies, differing one from another in nature, for they are meerly distinct, and haue no dependency, the one of the other: & in vse, For they are not ad Idem, they haue not both reference to the same end and action. the one pre∣sumptuously going before the Sacrament, and arrogat∣ing to it selfe some kind of preparing of the Action, the other modestly, coming after, and admonishing vs only, what we promised in the Action.

I might better conclude thus against their nouelties in the Lords supper.

They which doe not receiue the Communion kneeling, which the Auntients did, and doe receiue it standing or sitting, which the Auntients did not, doe not receiue the commumon as the Auntients did.

But the Treatiser and his adherents doe not receiue the communion kneeling, which thea 1.85 Auntients did, and doe

receiue it standing or sitting, which the Auntients did not. Ergo:

The Treatiser and his adherents doe not receiue the communion as the Auntients did.

For here, though the Ceremonies of kneeling which the Auntients vsed, and of sitting or standing, which the Treatisers frends vse, be different, the one frō the other: yet both the affirmatiō of the one, doth necessarily infer the negation of the other, and also both of them are or∣dained to the same end and Action, namely the recei∣ving of the communion.

Thirdly the Treatiser assuming it, as a thing granted, that the Ceremony of consecrating the Element, is aun∣tienter then the Ceremony of signing the forehead, doth thervpon conclude, that the most auntient of the Fa∣thers vsed the consecration of the Element, long before the consignatiō of the forhead was heard of. Wherin he is exceedingly deceiued▪ For though the Ceremony of consecration be of great antiquity, yet he may learne of M^r. Perkins that it is not to compare with consignation.* 1.86 For he saith, Annis a Christo 300 crux transiens, (which is the consignation of the Crosse) fuit signum externae professionis fidei not only adhibitum in vitâ communi, as he saith, but in Baptisme also, as before is proued out of the Auntients: But M^r. Perkins staieth not there, he saith further vix vnquam adhibita fuit ad signandum sacra∣mēta, nisi circa annum 400. Neither then was it straight∣way vsed in cōsecrating of the Elemēts, but by degrees: primò vt signaret nobis Christi bona, Aug: tract: 118. in Ioannem: tum posteà vt per eam benedictio sacramenti & consecratio fieret.

Why the Treatiser should deliuer vs this strange doc∣trine,

That the Auntients did not vse to signe the Childs forehead at all in Baptisme, J cannot conceiue: only J suppose his error might come thus: The Auntients spea∣king of two vses of the cōsignatiō, the one in commō life, the other in the Sacrament, as is said before, doe make farre more often mention of the vse in common life, then of the other, and somtimes ioine them both toge∣ther in one periode: So that except the iudgment of the reader, can direct him to descerne, which clause belong∣eth to the one vse, & which to the other, the error in this point is very easy: And so it seemeth the Treatiser was deceiued, applieing al their speaches whersoeuer, to the vse in common actions, and referring none to that in the Sacrament of Baptisme. But now let vs see how he pro∣ueth his assertion.

First the Auntients referred that, (saith he,) to the Bishopps confirmation, so that our crossing the infants forehead, & not the Element of Baptisme, is a meere nouel∣tie &c: True it is that in confirmation, the Childs fore∣head was signed by the Bishopp, but how doth this cō∣uince, that in Baptisme it was not signed by the Minis∣ter? That in confirmation,* 1.87 the Child•• forehead was sign∣ed, we easily beleeue, for so Tertullian telleth vs in many places, and Cyprian in his Epistle ad Jubaianum,* 1.88 Nunc quo{que} apud nos geritur, vt qui in Ecclesia baptizantur, prae∣positis Ecclesiae offerantur, per nostram orationem, ac ma∣nus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur, et signa∣culo Dominico consūmentur. But the affirmation of this doth not inferre a negation of the other. Yes, say you, they referred that vnto the Bishops confirmatiō: They re∣ferred indeed confirmation, and al the rites, and Cere∣monies therof, vnto the Bishop, as was meete: But did

not they, thinke you, performe al the rites of Baptisme themselues? your speach doth import as if you fauored confirmation, and allowed of the consignation there. Jf you fauor it truly, J am glad: for the Ceremony of con∣firmation is auntient, and hath a good vse (& yet J know not that our Bishoppes vse the consignation of the Crosse in that action) Jf you mention it only for your purpose, without any allowance of the confirmation, it seemeth you care not what you say, so you may giue the least blowe to our settled orders of the Church. Jt seem∣eth likewise, that you ascribe greater antiquity to the signing in confirmatiō, then to that in Baptism: For you inferr immediatly here vpon, that our crossing the Jn∣fants forehead is a meere nouelty. J cannot yeeld, that the signing in confirmation should be auntienter then the signing in Baptisme, no more then J can yeeld, that confirmation is auntienter then Baptisme: And yet for al that, J acknowledg the signing in confirmation to be very auntient, & am glad to heare you argue for the an∣tiquity of that, which your admonitiō to the Parliament so much extenuateth, calling it superstitious not agree∣ing 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 Bap∣tismo cap. 7. et 8. Euseb. l. 6. c. 42. Innocent. 1. ep. ad Decen∣tium

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.* 1.89 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 shew∣eth that Novatus the Hereticke after his Baptisme,* 1.90 reli∣qua consecutus non est post morbum, quae iuxta Ecclesiae ca∣nonem consequi debebat, obsignationem videlicet ab Epis∣copo. 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.* 1.91 De consignan∣dis 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 au∣thorities out of Rabanus and Durandus speake somewhat more plainly & directly to your purpose: for the first saith signatur baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in ca∣pitis summitate, per pontificem vero in fronte, &c.* 1.92 The se∣cond 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 cōfir∣mation 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 an∣swer 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:* 1.93 Sextum donum Baptis∣mi est in vertice, id est in summitate capitis, super cerebrū cū chrismate facta perunctio: septimū est in fronte chris∣matio: and that you may be sure, that this, in fronte chris∣matio, was with the signe of the Crosse, he tels you, that omnia chrismata cum crucis figurâ perficiuntur.* 1.94 Lastly, J oppose to those late writers, the authorities of the Anci∣ents before rehearsed, and withall the iudgement and li∣berty of our Church, which rather chose to follow the v∣niforme simplicity of the Ancients, then the divers multi∣plicitie 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 E∣lement of Baptisme, is a meere novelty of some 600. yeares standing, &c.

Our crossing of the Infants forehead, & not the Ele∣ment 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 per¦swaded

to set it downe.

Secondly, your second proofe is out of Tertullian. Nei∣ther wil that place of Tertullian, de resurrect. carnis,* 1.95 proue the contrary: Caro abluitur, vt & anima emaculetur, caro vngitur vt anima consecretur, caro signatur, vt & anima muniatur, caro manus impositione adumbratur, vt & ani∣ma spiritu illuminetur, caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt & anima de Deo saginetur. Hēce you gather that though indeed he mention the signing of the faith∣full, 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 like∣ly (as any man that is acquainted with his articulate mā∣ner of writing wil thinke) that he endevoured rather, e∣qually to fit each severall clause to his severall Ceremo∣nie, 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 mē¦tion 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 Christiani∣ty, but to mention only their praiers, and the things es∣sentiall 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, & e∣uen in this Apologie he saith before, that nothing was done, without this figure of the Crosse. Concerning Ter∣tullian,

not remembring it in the places, you cite, who, you say, would not haue omitted it, if it had bin then vs∣ed: 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 pro∣gressum, omnem promotum, and quacun{que} nos conversatio exercet &c. doth except none, and therfore not Baptis∣me. Againe he that saith it was vsed, in Actions of ciuil conuersation, doth leaue no place of doubt, but that it was much rather vsed in their holy actions of Religion. Lastly there are some learned mē, that vnderstand those words in the seuenth chapter: Exinde egressi de lauacro perungimur benedicta vnctione,* 1.96 of the sign of the Crosse, which was vsed in all annoyntings, as you heard before out of Durandus.

Treatise. 11. Sect. 2. Obiection.

But the signe of the Crosse is not vsed in Baptisme, but when Baptisme is ended.

Treatisers answere to our 2. Obiection

If you take Baptisme, only for that dipping and sprink∣ling of the party, it is true, and so none of the Popish addi∣tions, vvhereby they defile the holy Sacrament, are in Bap∣tisme, for those, which apud Bellar. Baptism. comitantur are not impious; But if you take Baptisme, as indeede we doe, for the administration of that Sacrament, then both the praiers before, and the praiers after the Actions, after the dipping, doe all indifferently belong to one and the selfe same thing: yet it is all, vna & continua actio administra∣tionis sacramenti: Sure it is, that it must be said to be, ei∣ther in Baptismo, extra Baptismum, aut nullibi, if it bee

out of Baptisme, how is it by common consent of all said to be, signum crucis in Baptismo.

Replie to the Treatisers answere to our second obiection.

This whole answere to our second obiection is no∣thing else but a meere cauil of the Treatisers: For though the whole action, being vna et continua actio adminis∣trationis sacramenti, as you-name it, be called Baptis∣me: Yet it is so called, a digniori parte, and therfore we may very wel, & ought alwaies to distinguish, between those things, which are essentiall in this action, and those things, which are accidentall, betwene those thinges which are for substance of Baptisme, and those thinges which are for decency, & ornament. For ne ij quidem, qui ista excogitarunt, vel ab alijs introducta defenderunt, a∣liud esse censuerunt, quam Baptismi ornamenta.

No, say you, you must not so distinguish, but you must take Baptisme as we doe:* 1.97 for otherwise None of the Popish additions, whereby they defile that holy Sa∣crament, are in Baptisme, for those which apud Bellarmi∣num Baptismum comitantur, are not impious: Al this not∣withstāding, you must giue vs leaue to distinguish those things which in their owne nature are distinct: True it is that none of those quae apud Bellarminum Baptismū comi∣tantur, are of their owne nature impious, neither are they of the essence of Baptisme, and therfore wee hold, that they which are Baptised, in the Church of Rome, are rightly Baptized. But if those apud Bellarm: are not im∣pious, as you say, why call you them Antichristian? and if they be Antichristian, how are they not impious? we see your kind affectiō towards our Church: Our signing with the Crosse in Baptisme is Antichristian, as you

call it in the 14. Section, and yet these Popish additions, that defile the Sacrament are not impious.

Your argutation, that it must be either in Baptismo, extra Baptismum, aut nullib•• is answered in a word. It is in Baptismo, that is in administratione Baptisme, & not in essentia Baptismi. Jt is in Baptisme as an outward de∣cent Ceremony, and ornament of the action, not as an inward part or substance of the Sacrament.

Treatise. Section. 12. 3. Obiection.

The signe of the Crosse is very auntient.

Treatisers answere to our 3. obiectiō.

So are many popish traditions, and if on that grounde, we are to retaine it, why doe we not giue the Baptized, lactis et mellis concordiā? why doe we not bring offerings for the dead? for Tertullian the first of the Fathers that e∣uer mentioned the Crosse, doth establish these, & the signe of the Crosse, by one, and the selfe same warranty. Besides if vpon the Fathers tradition wee vse the Crosse, then must we receiue, and vse it, as they haue deliuered it vnto vs, that is, with opinion of vertue, & efficacy, not only in the Act of blessing our selues, and in the expelling of Di∣uells, but euen in the consecration of the blessed Sacra∣ments:* 1.98 For the first Tertullian is wittnes. Ad omnē pro∣gressum, ad omnem promotum, ad omnem aditum, at{que} exitum, ad vestitum et calceatum, frontem crucis signa∣culo terimus:* 1.99 For chasing of Diuels, Hierome counselleth Demet. vir. to vse the Crosse: et crebo inquit signaculo crucis munias frontem tuam, ne exterminator Aegipti in te locum reperiat: Lactantius de hoc signo scribens, ait Christi sectatores, inquinatos spiritus signo passionis excludere: Chrysostom: in Psalm: 109. Crux inquit mu∣nit

mentem, ea daemones vlciscitur, ea tollit morbos a∣nimae. But these superstitions are small in regard of that efficacy, which in the Sacraments,* 1.100 antiquity ascribed vnto the Crosse: For Cyprian (being the auntientest, that mak∣eth mention of the Crosse in Baptisme) speaketh of it. cu∣ius virtus omnia peragit Sacramenta, sine quo signo ni∣hil est sanctum, nec; aliqua consecratio meretur effectū, And againe: Quicun{que} sunt Sacramentorum ministri, qualescun{que} sunt manus quae vel mergunt accedentes ad Baptismum, vel vngunt, qualecun{que} pectus, de quo sa∣cra exeunt verba, operationis autoritas in figura crucis omnibus Sacramentis largitur effectum: August. in Ioh. tract: 118. Quod signum inquit nisi adhibeatur siue frō∣tibus credentium, sine ipsi aquae, qua regenerantur, siue oleo quo Chrismate inungūtur, siue sacrificio quo alun∣tur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur: It were superfluous to re∣hearse the rest.

Replie to the Treatisers answere to our third Obiection.

I looked in this place, that you would rather haue pro∣ved, the noveltie of this Ceremony, and that it is no anci∣enter then of some 600. yeares standing (as you please to iest before) then so easily yeeld, that it is very ancient, as here you doe: For you doe not deny the antiquitie, that which was obiected, but imply, That antiquity is no cause sufficient why wee should vse it, because, say you, so are many other Popish traditions.

Your answere containeth these two brances.

1 If antiquitie be a cause, why we should retaine it, why should we not retaine other Ceremonies also, as an∣cient as this?

2 Jf vpon the Fathers tradition wee vse the Crosse,

why then doe we not vse it with opinion of vertue & ef∣ficacie, as they haue delivered it?

Vnto this your answer you add by way of Corollary that though it be ancient, yet antiquity could never free it frō sin, & superstitiō; whervpō you make two observations.

1 How dāgerous a thing it is to bring in any humane invention into the service of God.

2 How it may iustly be reputed Popish & Antichri∣stian, 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 re∣taine a Ceremony: Yet it may giue vs good cause, to ex∣amine 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 Ceremo∣ny of the Crosse in Baptisme, hath founde, that as it vvas then, so it may be stil a Ceremony of decencie, and profi∣table admonition in the Church: shee hath therefore ac∣cording to that liberty, which in matter of Ceremonie, is permitted to every severall Church, retained this, & ab∣rogated some other, which in her iudgmēt, seemed both more burdensome, & lesse profitable. These reasons cō∣curring with antiquity, adde the greater weight vnto it, as on the other side, it addeth also vnto them; & all of thē togither yeeld cause very sufficient, why some ancient Ce∣remonies rather be retained, then other some. And there∣fore to your first question, why doe we not vse other anci∣ent 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 M^r. Bucer:* 1.101 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, & plera{que} alia sic sentio: Si quae Ec∣clesiae essent, quae puram Christi tenerent doctrinam, et sinceram seruarent disciplinam, his{que} signis vterentur sim∣pliciter, et pure, abs{que} omni superstitione, vel leuitate, praecise ad pias admonitiones, eas{que} probe omnibus intel∣lectas, 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 & pro∣fitable vse: as of the former Tertullian testifieth lib. de coron. mil. cap. 3. and of the latter, both M^r. Beza,* 1.102 & 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 ne∣cessary, 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 opini∣on of vertue & efficacy (wherof we shall say more after∣wards) was euill in the Fathers, yet there is no reasō, 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 S^t. Hierome: For he that gaue vs the free commission of omnia probate,* 1.103 restrained vs

only to good things in our choice quod bonum est tenete.

But my affection (willing J confesse in nothing rash∣ly to accuse the Auntients) leadeth me rather to thinke, that euē this opiniō 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 mentiō a litle after, yet they yeelded no opiniō of vertue and efficacy, to that signe, but to the Crosse, & passion of Christ, wherof that signe was an outward token and re∣semblance: And this J hope to make apparant to the in∣different 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 at{que} promotum, &c. But what if they by this act of signing thēselues with the signe of the Crosse, did not intend blessing of them∣selues, as you tearme it, but remembrance of Christes be∣nefits performed for them on the Crosse? For so S. Cyrill answereth Iulian the Apostata, when hee had called the Christians,* 1.104 miseros quibus curae esset semper, & d••mos & frontes, signo pretiosae crucis signare: Haec omnia (saith hee) meaning the benefits of Christs passiō which he had re∣cited before) recordari nos facit salutare lignum,* 1.105 & sua∣det, ut cogitemus quòd, sicut dicit diuinus Paulus, vnus pro omnibus mortuus est vt viventes non vltrà sibijpsis vivāt sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est & resurrexit. And a little after, pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriā 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 signū crucis,* 1.106 sed per Metonymiam passionem crucifixi. To which purpose he expoundeth Constantines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est, Deo, non signo: and citeth an authoritie of Chrysostome,* 1.107 Crucem non simpliciter digito in corpore, sed magna profecto fide in mente formare oportet. And aftervvards conclu∣deth all that hee had saide before, with this most ex∣cellent rule, how the Fathers are to be vnderstood. whē they attribute any thing to this signe: Omnia dicta Pa∣trum, (saith he) vbi crucē, spem, redemptionem, ac salutē &c: esse volunt, intelligenda esse relatiuè, vt referantur ad passionem Christi, vel ad ipsum crucifixum, signo crucis re¦presentatum: 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,* 1.108 Qui ma∣nè surgens, et vesperi cubitum vadens▪ signat se cruce, in signum militiae Christianae, non est culpandus, modo absit superstitio.

Secōdly you accuse them for ascribing vertue and ef∣ficacy to the signe of the Crosse, in expelling and chas∣ing away of Deuils, for proofe whereof, you cite Hi∣erome ad Demetriadem, Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 17.* 1.109 and Chry∣sostome in Psal. 109. All these autorities J easily grant to be true, and a number such like, in the writings of the fa∣thers: and yet J deny that in those speeches, they ascribe any opiniō of vertue or efficacy to the sign of the Crosse. This is not mine owne opinion only, but J learne it of that excellent divine Hier. Zanchius. I doubt not, saith he but that sometimes Satan was driven away indeede at the signe of the Crosse,* 1.110 as Augustine reporteth many miracles to

haue bin done with that signe, and the Deuill also, to haue bin chased: De ciuitate Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. Verū non prop∣ter vimsigni, sed propter virtutem fidei, in Christum cru∣cifixum, qua praediti erant, et sunt fideles, in fugam verte∣batur, at{que} vertitur Diabolus. Goulartius, speaketh to the like effect:* 1.111 Signum illud (crucis) ad passionem et sangui∣nem Christi pertinere Cyprianus testatur, Quamuis ergo veteres Christiani externo signo crucis vsi sunt, id tamen fuit sine superstitione: et doctrina de Christi merito ab errore, qui postea irrepsit, pios seruauit immunes, Cypri∣an himselfe speaketh so fully to this purpose, as any man that marketh his words cannot conceiue so grosly of the Ancients:* 1.112 His words be these, I am videt Hebraeus, et qui∣cun{que} de seruitute Aegyptia ad repromissae patriae libertatē anhelat, quòd sanguis Christi efficacius, quam sanguis ag∣ni illius, quem in Aegypto Israel immolavit, contrarias ab∣ig at potestates: cuius hodiè tanta est autoritas, & potestas, vt non solum Israelitica limina muniat, sed etiam ab ijs qui Israeliticè non vivunt, solum Sacramenti signū repel∣lat Daemonia, & vbicun{que} conspecta fuerit, terribilis sit sacri nominis virtus, & sanguinis nota. This testimony J haue rehearsed at large, because it most excellently deli∣vereth vnto vs, as wel his own opiniō, as the opiniō of al the Ancients, touching this signe. And yet if you desire a plainer testimony, hear M. Perkins, who in most expresse & significant tearmes vtterly acquitteth thē of your vn∣iust accusation.* 1.113 Veteres (saith he) secruce cōtra Daemones munierunt, non quod externo signo crucis tantam vim & efficaciā adscrip serint, sed hac solenni ceremonia suam fiduciam in crucem id est, mortem Christi, apud alios testa∣ri, et quodam quasi monitorio fidē excitare voluerunt, quae omnia mala de pellit: And because you shall not haue the

vse of this Ceremony without a reason, Zanchius telleth you why it pleased God to shewe such power at the ma∣king of this signe, vt illos in sincera fide confirmaret,* 1.114 qui primam ad Christi veniebant religionem

Thirdly you accuse them for ascribing vertue and ef∣ficacy, to the signe of the Crosse, in consecration of the blessed Sacraments, And this you aggrauat with Tra∣gick words. For these superstitions, say you, are small in regard of that efficacy, which in the Sacraments Anti∣quity ascribed vnto the Crosse: and this point you proue out of S^t. Cyprian de Bapt. & passione Christi & S^t. Aug. 118. tract: vpon S^t. Iohn. All these authorities J willing∣ly acknowledg: But withal J must giue you to vnderstād, that you cite your first authority out of S^t. Cyprian,* 1.115 mala fide, For there, by the Crosse he meaneth Christs passiō, wherein the Apostle S^t. Paule boasteth:* 1.116 and your se∣cond partially and to your owne aduantage, as partly hath bin tould you before: For after these words: Opera∣tionis autoritas in figura crucis, omnibus Sacramentis lar∣gitur effectum, you should haue added that which im∣mediatly followed, Et cuncta peragit nomen, quod omni∣bus nominibus eminet, a Sacramentorum Vicarijs inu••ca∣tum, & then the latter part of the Sentence would haue cleared the former, from that most wrongful imputatiō that you lay vpon it. S.a 1.117 Aug. in that place sheweth, not how the Cross sanctifieth, but how it signifieth.

Jt is a very strong and strang conceipt of yours that could induce you to thinke, that the Auncient Fathers were so simple, as to ascribe any efficacy of consecration of the Sacraments, vnto the signe of the Cross, you can∣not be ignorant, that the name or word of consecration, is an Ecclesiasticall word, of frequent vse in the matter of Sacraments, called somtimes Sanctification as in Cypri∣an,

and diuers others, somtimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Inuocation, as in S^t. Basill, and Theodoret, somtimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Benedic∣tion, as Mat: 26:26: Mark. 14.22. 1. Cor. 10.16. somtimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thanksgiuing as Luk. 22.19. 1. Cor: 11.24. but most ordinarily consecration in the writings of the Fa∣thers. Neither can you be ignorant, that S. Paule calleth the cuppe.* 1.118 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The cuppe of blessing, which we blesse, referring this blessing not vnto God, but vnto the cupp: insomuch as Oecumenius expoū∣deth the Apostle, as if he had said thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the cup of blessing which we blesse, that is which we prepare with praise and thanksgiuing. Jt is euident therfore, that the name of consecration, when we speak of the Sacraments, is no such name as we should be a∣fraid of, hauing so good warrant for it: especially in the Scriptures. The thing that is signified by the name, would likwise be considered, that therby we may also iudg, whether the Auntients be iustly taxed by the Treatiser. The thing therfore signified by this name, was nothing else among the Auntients, but a sequestra∣tion of the Elements, from their commō vse, and a sanc∣tifiing of them, by praier, & inuocation, and thanksgiue¦ing vnto God, to that holy vse which was proper to the Sacraments: as of the water in Baptisme that it might be sanctified, to the mysticall washing away of sins: of the bread and wine in the Lords supper, that it might be pre∣pared & sanctified to the spirituall eating of Christs bo∣dy,* 1.119 and drinking of his bloud. Noster calix et panis, saith S^r. Augustine, certa consecratione mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur: proinde, quod non ita fit, quamuis sit panis, et ca∣lix, adiumentum est refectionis, non Sacramentum religi∣onis. Thus far the Auntient Fathers are free frō blame,

for even we also in our Church doe the same thing: For we likewise do by praier and invocation sanctifie the E∣lements, (which are otherwise of their owne nature or∣dained for commō vse,) that they may serue for holy vses: and that those things, which were before necessary helps, for the vse of life, and clensing of our bodies, may nowe become effectuall signes of regeneration, and of the body and bloud of Christ, for the norishing of our souls. Nei∣ther doe we now in our Church abhorre the name of consecration, not think the thing to noe purpose, but as∣cribe vnto it a certaine effect of change, that it worketh in the Elements, not of their substance, into an other, nor of their naturall qualities, (as the Papists conceiue their Magicall consecration) to effect Transubstantiati∣on, but of their vse, and seruice only; that those things which were for common vse before, are now dedicated and appropriated to these holy vses.

Againe a man that truly estemeth, that the Fathers ascribe no vertue nor efficacy to the sacraments them∣selues▪ wil easely free them from this imputation, of as∣cribing vertue and efficacy to the signe of the Crosse in Consecration. For how can any man imagine: that they which attribute the vertue and efficacy of consecrating the Elements to the signe of the Crosse, should not much more ascribe vnto the Elements so consecrated, some efficacy and vertue of themselues? Now that they ascribed no such power vnto the Sacraments thēselues, nor had any conceit of grace to be conferred by the opus operatum of the Sacraments, as the schoolmē afterward conceiued, we haue most ful and certaine assurance out of their owne testimonies. S. Hierome saith. Qui plena fide non accipiunt Baptisma, non spiritum sanctum, sed

aquam percipiunt S. Ambrose likewise to the same pur∣pose, spiritus munus est, gratiam implere mysterij. S^t. Au∣gustine is plentiful in this argument. Sacramenta, nō quiae sumuntur sed quia creduntur, sanctificant. And againe, in fidelibus & Electis Sacrament a hoc verè efficiunt quod figurant. And againe, Visibilis sacramenti forma, à mini∣stro datur, ipse autem Christus invisibilem dat gratiam. And in another place, Aqua cernitur, sed qui non videtur spiritus operatur.* 1.120 Vnde tanta vis aquae, vt corpus tangat & cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia exeditur? And S^t. Cyprian most plainely of all. Effectum sanctificatis Elementis, non propria eorum natura praebet, sed virtus divina potentiùs operatur, vt adsit veritas sig∣no & spiritus sacramento: at{que} ex ipsis rerum efficientijs dignitas gratiae patefiat, & interiori homini innotescat.

Yea say you, all this were well enough, but herein the Fathers are to be blamed, because in consecration, they vsed the signe of the Crosse, and ascribed this consecra∣tion, & sanctifying of the Elements vnto that signe. They vsed the signe of the Crosse therein indeede, and thence are these speeches of theirs which you alleadged. But they ascribed not this consecration, and hallowing to the signe of the Crosse, but vnto Christes death, whereof the Lords Supper is a remembrance.* 1.121 Doe this in remēbrance of me And Baptisme a similitude or representation, vvee that are Baptized into Christ Iesus,* 1.122 are Baptized into his death, and die buried with him by Baptisme into his death, &c. And therfore in these Sacraments of Christs death, they made the signe of the Crosse, wheron he died, to sig∣nifie that it was his death, that gaue efficacie and vertue to these Sacraments. Also they ascribed this efficacie and power, not vnto the signe of the Crosse, but vnto the words of consecration, or if you wil rather so call them, of

Christs institution according to that of S. Augustine. Ac∣cedat verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. And be∣cause the words of Christs institution refer vs alwaies to his death, therfore they made in the pronouncing of thē, the signe of the Crosse, wheron he died. Hence it is, that though they vsed the signe of the Crosse in consecration, yet they attributed not the vertue of consecration vnto it, but vnto Christ and his institution. And therefore S^t. Cyprian, wheresoever he mentioneth the one,* 1.123 doeth al∣waies ioine the other with it: As, in passione crucis, et sig∣no virtus omnis est, & potestas; & in the examples before rehearsed, with Figura crucis, he ioineth peragit nomē in∣vocatum, and with signum repellat daemonia, hee ioineth, sacri nominis virtus, & sanguinis nota.* 1.124 The like doth S. Aug. Omnia quaecun{que} sanctificantur hoc signo dominicae crucis cum invocatione Christi nominis consecrantur.

The distinctiō that you make between Tert. & Cyp. that Tert. should bee the first of the Fathers that ever menti∣oned the Crosse, & Cyprian the ancientest, that maketh mention of the Crosse in Baptisme, is a very vaine & fri∣volous distinction. For (to keepe my selfe within the cō∣passe of those Ancients that I haue before cited,) both Iustin Martyr, before Tertulliā, mentioneth the Crosse: & Tertullian himselfe, as also Origen, which were before Cypriā, make mentiō of the Crosse in Baptisme, as before J haue declared. Jt were superfluous, say you, to rehearse the rest, & these too, except you rehearsed thē to better purpose.

Notes

• * 1.1

  De coron. mil.
• * 1.2

  2. Pet. 1.4.
• * 1.3

  Beza ep. 2. circa med.
• * 1.4

  Bezae ep. 24. ad 5. 6. 7. & 8.
• * 1.5

  Jbid. m▪ 9.
• * 1.6

  Hemmingius in Syurag cap. de adiaphonū. 9
• * 1.7

  Tert. Apol. c. 2.
• * 1.8

  Just. Mart. A∣pol. 2. non lodge à fine.
• * 1.9

  Ier. 3.1.
• * 1.10

  2. Cor. 6.18. Eph. 3.22.
• * 1.11

  Rom. 8.7.
• * 1.12

  Aug epi 50. ad Bonif. comitem.
• * 1.13

  Bucer. in script. Angl pag. 154.
• * 1.14

  Wolphius in hunc locum.
• * 1.15

  Aug. de civit. Dei lib. 10. c. 8.
• * 1.16

  2 King 18.4.
• * 1.17

  Dist 63. cap. Quia Sancta.
• * 1.18

  Non temere, nec subinde, nec levibus de cau∣sis ad novatio∣nem est decurrē dum Calv. Inst. lib 4 cap. 10.
• * 1.19

  Beza Respon. ad Franc. Baldvin. pag. 227.
• * 1.20

  Ierem. 13:19. Ierem. 8.2.
• * 1.21

  Bucer in script. Angl. pag. 454.
• * 1.22

  Ioh. 3.14.
• * 1.23

  Beza epist. 24. ad 5. 6. 7. & 8. Num. 9.
• * 1.24

  Calv. Jnsi. lib. ••. c. 10 par. 6. 31
• * 1.25

  Bucer in script. Angl. pag. 454.
• * 1.26

  Pet. Mart. in Ep 4. ad Hop∣perum.
• * 1.27

  1. Cor. 14.40.
• * 1.28

  Ioh. 3.14.
• * 1.29

  Aug. de catech. rudibus cap. 20. Cyprian ad De∣••••et. cap. 19.
• * 1.30

  Exod. 12.7.
• * 1.31

  Ezech. 9.4. Gen. 48.14.
• * 1.32

  Wolf. Muscul in Gen. cap. 48.
• * 1.33

  Cyp. ep. ad Thi∣••ar. cap. 8.
• * 1.34

  Tertull de coron mil. cap. 3.
• * 1.35

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.36

  Tit. 1.15.
• * 1.37

  Ezech. 18.20.
• * 1.38

  Aug. quaest. in Iudic. quaest. 41
• * 1.39

  P. Mart. in hunc locum.
• * 1.40

  Gedeon illud E¦phod Pōtificale & pretiolum confecit. Pet. Mart.
• * 1.41

  Iudg. 8.27.
• * 1.42

  August.
• * 1.43

  Pet. Mart. in hunc locum.
• * 1.44

  Pet. Mart. ep. 4. ad Hopperum.
• * 1.45

  Aug cont. Cres∣con. Gramma. lib 1. cap. 1.
• * 1.46

  Hem. in cap. 5. ep. 1. Joan.
• * 1.47

  Sect. 13. T. C. lib. 1. pag. 170.
• * 1.48

  P. Martyr in cap. 7. Judic. Beza de notis Eccles. Cathol.
• * 1.49

  Beza respons ad Franc. Baldwin.
• * 1.50

  Beza de Eccle. catho. notis.
• * 1.51

  Heming. in ep. 1. Joan. cap. 5.
• * 1.52

  Bucer in ordin. Eccles. cap. 12.
• * 1.53

  Pezel. in Refut ••••••ech. Iesuit.
• * 1.54

  Daneus respon. ad Bellar. cont. 7. ad cap. 29.
• * 1.55

  Perkinsus in Demonst. prob. cap. de signo ••••••••is ••um. 2.
• * 1.56

  Zanch. de oper. Redem. l. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.57

  Goulart. in Cyp. ad Demet. cap. 19.
• * 1.58

  Idem in Cypr. Ep. 56. ad Thi∣baritanos, ca. 7.
• * 1.59

  Canon. 30.
• * 1.60

  Declaratorie quoad alios, memorativè, et monitoriè quo∣ad scipsum.
• * 1.61

  Aug. de peccat. meritis & re∣missione, lib. 2. cap. 26.
• * 1.62

  Goulart. Cap. ep. 63. num. 39.
• * 1.63

  Hieron. ad Trā. qutll l. 1. ep. 54.
• * 1.64

  1. Thess. 1. 21.
• * 1.65

  Isai. 5.20.
• * 1.66

  Aug. de peccat. meritis & re∣miss. lib. 2. c. 26.
• * 1.67

  Cyp. de passion, dom cap. 11. Sect. 12.
• * 1.68

  Goulart. in sy prian Epist. 56. ad Thibaritan.
• * 1.69

  Aug. epist. 5. ad Marcellinum.
• * 1.70

  Iuell. in Apolog.
• * 1.71

  Dionysius lib. Eccles. Hierar. cap. 4. & 5.
• * 1.72

  Just. Mart. resp ad orth. q. 118.
• * 1.73

  Origen. Homil. 2. in Psal. 38. Tom. 1.
• * 1.74

  Sect. 12. Cyprian de v∣nit. Eccl. ca. 16.
• * 1.75

  Ad Demet. ca. 19.
• * 1.76

  Cap. 22.
• * 1.77

  Cap. 7.
• * 1.78

  Cap. 22.
• * 1.79

  De vera sapien. lib. 4 cap. 26.
• * 1.80

  Basil de spiritt sacto. cap. 27.
• * 1.81

  Aug. de fide & symb. ad Catech. lib. 4. cap. 1.
• * 1.82

  Jn Psalm 30.
• * 1.83

  In Psal. 141.
• * 1.84

  Demonst, prob. ca. de signo cru∣cis. Refut. Catech. Iesuitic.
• a 1.85

  Geniculatio speciē habes piae & Christianae venerationis, ac proinde potuit olim cum fructu vsurpari. Bez. Epist. 12.
• * 1.86

  Perkins demon plobl cap. de sig∣no crucis.
• * 1.87

  Tertull. de Bapt cap. 8.
• * 1.88

  Cypr. ep. 73. de Heret. baptiz. Cap. 8.
• * 1.89

  Tertull. de bap∣tis. cap. 9.
• * 1.90

  Euseb li. 6 c. 42
• * 1.91

  Innocent. ad De cent ep. 1. tom. 1 coacil.
• * 1.92

  Ruban. Maurus de Jnstitut. cle∣rico. lib 1. c. 30. Durand. ration. divin. lib. 1. cap de consecrat. itā lib 6. cap. 83.
• * 1.93

  Durand. lib 6. ration. cap. 83.
• * 1.94

  Jbid. cap. 84.
• * 1.95

  Cap. 8.
• * 1.96

  Tert. de Bapt. cap. 7.
• * 1.97

  Beza resp. ad Franc. Baldwin.
• * 1.98

  De coron, milit.
• * 1.99

  Lib. 2. 20. epist. ad Demetr. Lib. 4. cap. 17.
• * 1.100

  Cyprian. de passion.
• * 1.101

  Bucer in 4. ca ad Ephes.
• * 1.102

  Beza de notis Eccles. P. Martyr in ca. 7 Judicum.
• * 1.103

  Pag. 97.
• * 1.104

  Cyrill. Alexand coner. Iulianum lib 6. tom. 3.
• * 1.105

  2. Cor. 5.15.
• * 1.106

  Perkins demōst prob. cap. de sig∣no crucis.
• * 1.107

  Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 55.
• * 1.108

  Hemin. in 1▪ ep. Ioan. cap. 5.
• * 1.109

  Zanch. de re∣demp. l. 1. p. 366
• * 1.110

  Hier. Zanch. de redempt lib. 6. ••••••. 366.
• * 1.111

  Goulart. in Cy∣prian ad Deme∣••rian. cap. 19.
• * 1.112

  Cypr. de passion. Christi. cap. 11.
• * 1.113

  Perkins demon prob. cap. de sig∣no crucis.
• * 1.114

  Zanch. loco su∣pra citate.
• * 1.115

  Cyprian. de bap. Christi cap. 2.
• * 1.116

  Cyp: de pass. Christi cap. 11.
• a 1.117

  Quando per crucem Christi quam f••••erunt m•…•…li, in celebra∣tione sacramen∣t••••um, eius bo∣num nobis omne signatur, & so Mast Perkins himselfe ex∣pounds it. demon prob. ca. de signo crucis.
• * 1.118

  1. Cor. 10.16.
• * 1.119

  Aug cont. Faust Manich li. 20. cap. 13. Tom. 6.
• * 1.120

  August. quest. ex nouo Test 59. De vnct▪ Chris∣matis cap. 3.
• * 1.121

  1. Cor. 11 24.
• * 1.122

  Rom. 6.3.4.
• * 1.123

  Cypr. testim. ad Quirin. lib. 2. cap. 21.
• * 1.124

  Aug: serm 181. de Temp. vide & serm. 19. de Sanctis.