Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies

#Sect. 2. The doctrine of the Cross teacheth merit, satisfaction and pardon for sin.

THe second Idol found in the Cross is the man that doth use it, who is said to merit by it, to satisfy by it, sometime also to pardon by it, which none but God himself can do. The sign of the Cross is an act of devotion, a part of God's worship, a profession of Christian faith, therefore in signing our selves with it, how can we not merit, saith the Papists? And whereas a venial sin is not the death but the wound of grace, that may satisfy for it, saith he that can recover to our souls our former fervor of devotion by the considering of some what else that is able to inflame it. Now among these, the sign of the Cross excelleth for that it raiseth a remembrance of the passion it self of Christ, so that here hath place that of the Apostle, God forbid I should rejoice save in the cross of Jesus Christ. No need (say they) to interpret this of the death of Christ alone: we may interpret it of Christ's death as remembered by a Cross, since this sign by remembering of it purgeth the impurities of the soul, being (to omit all other means) enabled thereto by the ordinance of the Church, which doth impetrat for the ceremonies which it doth bless a power to cleanse from venial sins. And this is ordinary. Another trick there is on foot whereby the treasurers of the Church join their blessing to the Cross by way of indulgence. For as John the 22. annexed an indulgence of 40. days pardon to the office of the Cross, so are there standing pardons adjoined to the crosses Church at Rome for every day 48. years: for every Sunday 300. years: and for the Dedication day remission plenary. Now what grossnesse of idolatry call you this? For none can pardon but God alone, none merit of God or make satisfaction but only Christ: and he by virtue of his Godhead, without the which his Manhood could not have done anything either meritorious or satisfactory for our redemption.

#Sect. 3. The effects of the Cross Spiritual great and marvelous. Two objections to the same answered.

THe third Idol is the sign of the Cross itself endued with virtue for effects spiritual, great and marvelous, for whi •• he is also worshipped. The Cross blesseth, which only the blessed seed can do. The Cross converteth sinners, which is a new creation. The Cross sanctifieth, which is the office of the holy ghost. The Cross driveth away the devil, which is the honor of the woman's seed. The Cross worketh miracles, whereas it is the Lord alone which worketh wonders ( Psal. 136.4.) what will ye more? The Cross saveth like the serpent, like Noah's Ark, like Ezechtels mark, (which were figures of Christ Jesus) yea saveth all that are marked with it, which is to be a Jesus. Two things I look to have objected: First they make the Cross a mean under God of these effects, which freeth them from Idolatry. Not so, as long as they hold it a mean that is worthy to be adored even as our Lord had been an Idolater if he had adored the devil out of an acknowledgement that he was a distributer of things earthly under God. Let not this instance be despised: for the sign of the Cross (as all other Popish Idols) is ^a flatly a devil, yea, a devil adored by them, as a distributer under God; not of temporal blessings only but also of heavenly graces. And what though some teach in their subtlety, that the Cross maketh holy by stirring up devotion only, not by imprinting any holiness, & moreover deny it to be holy per se but in relation of Christ alone they decree it worthy to be worshipped for this relative holiness, yea some to be adored per se. The former of these euicteth Idolatry; the latter of them a contradiction to maintain it. The second objection will be this. The Papists deny there is any holiness, power, or virtue in the Cross. True, inherently and per se. Which, what is it to the purpose, while adherently and in relation they say it hath holiness and virtue through Christ's institution and the Churches benediction; yea power to make actually holy even by bare touching, and to drive away the devil even ex opere operato: To wit, they compare the power of the Cross to the power of David's Harp, Tobithes Liber, Elisha's Salt, Christ's Hemme, Paul's Napkins: in all of which our writers find an Idolatrous fancy in thē, although being asked, I know they will answer, that none of these (to speak properly) had any power inherent in them, but an assisting virtue only. No more did the Pagan Olympias think any power celestial to be inherent in his Images perpetually. Neither did the Jews imagine any power habitually to be immanent in the serpent. Hereby these became to be Idols, that a certain power divine was thought to be (with them) and present to them, which is now ascribed to the Cross in a manner little better then that of the Pagans; sure in a manner out right as idolatrous as that of the Jews when they idolized the serpent. And this is verified, even in the learned of the Papists tanquam si presens vis inesset, they seek to Crosses and to Images, as once the heathen did to their Idols; they think there is a power given to relics, to cross; and unto the name of Jesus they attribute a Numen to a crucifix, howsoever in the schools they gull us with Nihil est Numinis, in an Image, or in a Cross. And John the 22. Pope ascribed a virtue to the Veronica: Salue vultus Domini, imago beat, lumen funde cordibus ex vi tibi data. In regard hereof our writers flatly call the cross an Idolatrous sign, an insinuate, that he cutteth to near upon the office of the Holy Ghost, and openly cry out upon the sacrilege of Rome for ascribing even the extraordinary effects of power divine unto these consecrate things of theirs. Therefore to conclude, as the tree of knowledge was an Idol when there was ascribed to it a power to make happy, the brazen serpent an Idol, when a power of healing was conceived to be with it, the star an Idol when he was deemed to have a power of effecting or foreshowing things below: as Jacob and Jehoram were made Idols when there was given to the one a power to give children, to the other a power to give life: finally as the earth of Israel was made an Idol by Naaman, and Dagon by his priests and servants, when the first was made able to sanctify a sacrifice, the latter made able by his touching to make holy a threshold, so is the Cross an Idol: now seeing he is imagined able to do that which the Lord can only do, and thereupon is adored and worshipped with the honor which belongeth to him alone.

#Sect. 4. In grace given and received by men, as also in forms of Oaths, the Cross is not only joined and matched with Christ, but sometime ouermatcheth him as being more effectual then be.

THe Cross is become an Idol in that it is joined with Christ, there being nothing more commonly heard then these copulatiues among the Papists, the name of Christ and the sign of the passion, the, faith of Christ and the banner of the Cross, the passion of Christ, & the Cross. When mention is made of grace to be given or to be received by men. And if the Agnus which the Cross doth consecrate, purgeth sin, sicat Christ sanguis as the blood of Christ itself which should it seem incredible to us, that the Cross the efficient of such power in the Agnus should be able himself to do as much in their opinion? Sure when Tecelius the pardoner taught that the Cross was able to cleanse our sin as well as the Cross of Christ, our writers interpret him to mean as well as the passion of Christ it self: why should they not? Pray not Papists at the consecrating of a Cross sicut per crucem Christi, &c. As by the Cross of Christ the world is expiated from all guilt, so by the merit of this Cross let them that offer it be clear from all committed offenses. He that will clear the Cross aerial from this attainder, he must consider the speeches are genenerall there is a water flowed into the Cross which is known to be the salvation of faithful souls and again, The Cross doth as much as the presence of Christ on earth, and proceedeth with like efficacy, as he himself the samplar. Howbeit, there is wherein the sign of the Cross ouergoeth Christ's flesh, as it was present here on earth, for as much as it had no effective virtue in it by the sight of it self and by bare touching to drive away Satan, or to make holy or to work miracles: but it was the mighty power of the Godhead, whereby these things were wrought. And before we leave this point, see we how he was matched with Christ in the worship of an oath when the old Christians were willed to swear by God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, per Maiestatem Imperatoris, by the Majesty of the Emperor Tertullian seemeth to mislike the form, Credimus humanum sacramentum divine super induci licere & in alium dominum respondere post Christum? Think we it lawful to add an human oath to the divine, and to swear after Christ by another Lord? Sure it is in France forbidden after this manner to swear by God and by the King or by the Kings children. Now this form of swearing is performed to the honor of the Cross, as appeareth by the oath which Otho took unto the Pope, Iuro per Patrem, & filium, & spiritum sanctum, & per signum hoc vivifica crucis. I swear by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and by the sign of this life-bringing Cross. When Pope Pelagius cleared himself, he went up to to deske having the book of the Gospels and a cross upon his head. Martin the fifth when he adiureth the followers of Wiclife, and of John Hus, he commandeth them to touch the book of the Gospel and the Image of the crucifix. The Cross then was honored in an oath as well as the Gospels book, which thar it was matched with Christ, it doth appear by the abjuration of Beringarius who swore by the Holy Trinite, & per haec sacro sancta Christi Euangelia, by the holy Gospel also. Now least any should reply, that Christ had the honor which the Cross signified as once in Anastatius oath, who holding a Cross in his hand said, per eum qui huic ligno affixus est inro: I swear by him who was fastened to this Cross, it must be considered that the very Cross itself had a part in this honor as appeareth by that Canon which enjoineth three years penance to him that hath forsworn himself upon a Cross consecrate, but in case the cross were not consecrate (by which he forswore himself) then the penance of one year only.

Thirdly, the sign of the Cross is an Idol in that it partaketh of God's worship both inward and outward. Of the inward he partaketh when men are taught to put their trust in him. a moral Idolatry (saith one of their own.) Sure an Idolatry by many of their own confessions, that which also is great, both because it is an adultery of the spirit which God, a spirit, much respecteth, and also because it setteth up a spiritual temple to an Idol, which is far worse then when some material temple is erected. And the Cross is to be worshipped outwardly with latria it self which is God's worship, for so the Church of Rome doth teach not only for a Cross material, but even for an aerial also. For who is ignorant of this distinction, the true nails and spear and sepulcher we adore, but not their Images. The true Cross we adore for his sake and his images also, him for touching and representing, these for representing only? And it is indeed directly taught that the sign of the Cross is to be worshipped among the rest of these representations, and their practice is answerable. For they invocate this sign, per crucis signum fugiat hinc omne malignum; per idem signum saluetur quodque benignum. Yea in invocation they join it with Christ. Per misericor diā Jesus Christi? Per auxilium & signum sanctae crucis, Per intercessionen beatae Mariae, &c. And they adore it in their solemnities. Adoramus crucis signaculum per quod sumpsimus salutis sacramentum: but more of this in place convenient.

#Sect. 5. The sign of the Cross, a part of the devils worship: A Character to effect things supernatural and devilish miracles. An instrument of witchcraft: an inchaunting rod, a magical sign.

THe fourth Idol of the sign of the Cross is the devil himself the adversary of God, who here obeyed and not God, is worshipped here instead of God as he was once in the hill altar, though set up for the worship of God as well as this sign is now. Think we the spirit without cause calleth him a devil, as it is evident that he doth it being one of the popish Idols against which the Turk is loosed? sure being a character used to effect things supernatural without promise from the Lord, it cannot be less then a rite of the devil, an instrument of witchcraft, yea a very inchaunting rod as our writers use to term it, why not? Seeing the pieces of the Cross were charms and inchauntments, by a certain womā borne in the bosom in Jerome's days, it no way helping which some allege there is no covenant made with the devil, for even an implicit covenant maketh up witchcraft, such as was between Eve and him in Paradise though not expressed. And whereas the heathen hangd Imagines Maniae before their doors to keep out hurtful spirits, the Jews at this hour set up a circle about their houses to keep out the devil, the Cross among Christians taketh up the reversion of this office even as we see him over many a country door for the very same purpose. Jerome could not brook the Deus Tutelaris which stood in the entry with a candell before it, to preserve the house from evil: for that it did hurt even to Christians and all converted, because as they went into such houses and went out of them, they were ever put in mind inoliti erroris of their old and wonted error. The Cross in baptism is more powerful to remember a wonted error, then a Cross in an entry or over a door, which also will never go from the possession of private houses until the public house of God do spew it out. Neither is it nothing that the Papists give it the name even of an Amulete against the devil, and fear not to say they conjure ( even conjure ) the devil by it. Somewhat also it is, that the devil hath wrought many miracles by it, and at this hour colludeth in it as in a cricle feigning he is chained or chased away, when (indeed) he giveth back to get the more ground, and flieth from the sight to surprise the soul with greater advantage. As for the crosses of the Mass Gregory the seventh took them immediately from the circle, which is the cause they run in odd numbers to keep the old rule, Numero deus impari gaudet. The crosses of consecration, and of the exorcism, are conjuring maces in like manner. What that the figure of the Cross is even by nature magical, and a ceremony used in magique throughout all ages. So that the Papists may seem to provide two strings for their bow when they chose him against the devil, no less then when for the matter of their Beads they choose a stone that hath a natural force against him not only a spiritual.

#Sect. 6. The Surplice as a Priestly and holy vestiment, is to be adored.

NOw while we thus wholly bend our force against the Cross, the Surplice happily may hope to escape, which must not be suffered. The things that be dead (saith the Papist) are not capable of adoration (per se). Howbeit as they have ( ordinem ) & relation unto God, so they are capable and they have an order to him which are consecrate to his service by the authority of the Church, which if it be public it is authentic & in this business doth suffice. For though there be not in these, saith he, such a relation unto God as can formally & expressly represent him like an Image and a Cross, yet being once consecrate to his service, they begin to be things of God: yea parts of God whose worship is a worship of God, so that with him they are to be worshipped as the purple is wont to be worshipped with the king. Some difference I grant there is among them about the manner of adoring, some think they are to be adored (per se) quatenus holy with an inferior adoration: others think it is superstitious to worship anything (per se) without relation unto God: and that the adoration due to holy things in this relation is not an inferior worship, but the worship of latria, wherewith God himself is worshipped. Howbeit, about the matter they all accord that holy things must be adored as well as Images, as well as Crosses, or anything else that appertaineth to the Lord. They say, Images and Crosses themselves must be adored like holy vessels, holy books, holy vestments, with the like. They say the cause of worshipping Images, and of worshipping other things holy is one and the same: They prove by these reasons Images must be adored and worshipped, because they are (res sacrae) holy things: at a word holy things are even n proprie, that is, properly to be worshipped in their opinion, as the ground (say they) was to be adored and worshipped where Moses stood, because it was holy: and the Ark, the Tabernacle with the rest of the Temple were all worthy to be adored because all holy to the Lord. This our own divines see well, who charge the Papists with Idolatry to be abhorred in their worshipping of holy books, vessels, instruments, with the like. Indeed their worships speak so much though they and we and all men else were silent, oblations, censings, lights, kissings, bowings, vaylings: which, are they not Idolatrous worshippings when communicated to a creature religiously? But the Surplice (you will say) is none of these. That were great pity, considering how eminent above the rest he is in holiness, both for use and signification, wherewith because I am loath to incumber myself, let this suffice, the vestes sacrae and the vestes sacerdotales, the holy and the priestly garments are not forgotten in the writings of the Papists, but named expressly for holy things that must be adored and worshipped. And must not the Surplice (then) pack with the Cross, and go with him for company, it being a filthy Idol like him? For if it were but a stone in a field, that had been worshipped as Papists adore and worshipped it, it ought to have been long since abolished as a council doth decree. In consideration that such Idolatry renounceth Christianity: which Idolatry cannot be remedied but by an utter desolation of the Idol. And this we have to say against the Cross and Surplice in that they are Idols. Now to proceed, if they were but Idolothites they were to be abhorred by us, the which we can easily prove against them.

#Sect. 7. The Cross, Surplice, &c. incurable and inerecouerable Idolothites. The Cross no creature of God, therefore utterly to be abolished.

THe Idolothite is wont to be described unto us, either actively, or passiuelie. Actively, that is Idolothious (saith the ancient description) quod est sub veneratione Idoli, which reflecteth any glance of the least honor, credit, or countenance to an Idol. So the Canon Law doth reackon a Pagan poeme to be an Idolothite not to be used, quia non solum thura offerendam daemonibus immolatur, sed etiam corum dicta libentius capiendo: and we know willingness to use an Idol as a sign of God's covenant graceth him more then when we read a poëme of his in some Grammar school or other for a lesson of Poetry. The Fathers do also inroule a stage-play among other Idolothites which represented heathen God's, although the Theater honoreth not so much as an holy Sacrament of the Lord's. Gatian accounteth meat sacrificed in a temple to be Idolothious even out of the Temple, and at a private table it self to the man that knoweth so much; for that honor in truth or in show at least which it sendeth to the Idol, to which it appertaineth. Passively, when a thing Idolothious is described in sense most large it is defined to be an unclean thing of Idolaters which we must not touch, because they defile whatsoever belongeth unto them, if their use which is religious hath but touched it. For as in the Law of Moses, that was unclean which had been touched by any other thing or person that was unclean, so now what heretics and Idolaters touch take any way into use religious, that is unholy and Idolothious, as Scriptures, Fathers, and the practice of the primative Church do show. For, was not the zeal of Christians such, that a bable was therefore held to be unclean, because by chance one of the Arians beasts had touched it, and that in the street. As for the Church, Constantine forbad his picture to be hanged in an Idols Temple, ne ipsa tabella vel minima lineamentorum parte prop • er vetitorum Idolorum errorem labem aliquam contraheret. But if an heretics touching in use civil, the touching of an heretics Temple defileth that which is not incorporated into their worship: then much more is that defiled which hath even state religious in their service, as the Cross and Surplice have, and that by way of consecration? Properly therefore that is Idolothious which hath been consecrate to an Idol with state religious in his worship. So the Jewels of the Iamnites were unlawful, because before they had been consecrate unto Idols. So Tertullian profanationis suae maculam haec habent ab initio Idolatria dicata. These things are spotted by their consecration unto Idolatry. So Augustine, when he defineth the Idolothite which is unlawful, he hath these words, Omni • creatura dei • ona est, sed si illud quod in agris na scitur consecratur Idolo, vel sacrificatur i • te • Idoloth y • a, de putandum est. So Ambrose (last of all) Aliquid p • ll • rum est p •• a •• identiam (id est) oblationem Idoli. By virtue hereof, whatsoever guilt there was in the Idols meat at Corinth, and at Pergamos, that lighteth upon the Cross and Simplice, because although they have been never sacrificed, yet have they been not only offered privately, but also publicly been consecrate to idolatrous service. Which doth it not make them Idolothites evē in the highest degree? For, as God ever blesseth to good, so the Devil to evil. As things well consecrate become holy, so things ill consecrate must of necessity become unholy. As things well dedicate receive an aptness for the service of God, so the contrary receive an aptness for the service of the Devil. Last of all, as right consecrations are blessings, so the profane blessings of heretics and Idolaters are maledictions and mere cursings that make most execrable. But if God's creatures by such consecration become the creatures of the Devil, become unholy, become parts of the Devils service and so accursed, then into what sink deserveth the sign of the Cross to be cast which never was good nor a creature of God's, and is now become so evil, as that he passeth the pollution of all other Idolothites whatsoever? What is the Agnus, what the holy Water, what the holy Bread to the Cross? What all the rest of Popish trumpery for which we are wont to raise such outcries against the Popish consecration? Hath the Cross any need of the Churches consecration, as these have need? No, the Cross is holy of it self; the sign • ereall of the Cross especially without any further consecration. But if he had need, there is not any whose patent is so large as his, as whereby he is not only himself consecrate to Idols service, but also installed a Grande consecrator of all things else in Idolatrous worship. The common creatures that are, are not blessed without the Cross to common use. What other things to use religious, Omnia nobis ipso signo crucis benedicuntur & sanctificantur. Are not the Sacraments excepted? No not the Sacraments, But, Omnia Sacramenta crucis signaculo perficiuntur, saith the Canon. At a word, sine hoc signo nihil sanctum, ne{que} aliqua consecratio qua meretur effectum. Come hither you that plead for this adulteress, see ye not how deeply she hath drunk of the bitter water of cursing to the rotting of her thigh, and the swelling of her belly? And this curse is as incurable, as it is bitter. When God's creatures are polluted they may be reddita suis benedictionibus, restored again unto their blessings as an ancient Father speaketh. For example, the Idols meat by the word and prayer may be restored to the common blessing of feeding the body which God did give it in the day that he created it, & the bread of the Sacrament Idolized to the special blessing of feeding the soul which Christ did give it in the night he ordained the supper, whereas this wretched and unworthy sign can recover no benediction by either of these two ways he being neither a creature of God, nor yet a rite of his sons ordaining. Such an Idolothite as this so deeply and irrecoverably polluted, shall it not be defaced through some injurious use or other? Yea be cast out of the Temple of God? Yea thrown unto the moules and backs the common receptacle of all defiled relics? For defacing with some injury, we have the ancient Albigenses for our torch-bearers, who in disgrace of Images and Crosses, painted the holy and blessed Virgin with one eye, and set forth the Crucifix with one nail only through both the feet. For removal out of God's Temple, we have the famous Maccab • us for our leader, who whē the Pagans had defiled the Altar, he would suffer it to stay no longer in the Temple. For throwing to the Moules & backs, we have the renowned & zealous Grecians for our example; who not only threw out Crosses and hurled Images out of the Church, but also qua ex c • ra fusa • rant in singularim ornatum, in turpes vsus converterunt. Keep we then the Cross & Surplice within the church and break we willfully those two cautions which have been evermore prescribed and accordingly practiced against the Idolothite? First to show our detestation of the Idol, we must either destroy him, or in keeping him for private use, so alter and change him that Omnis honor Idoli cum apertissima destructione sub • ertatur. that all the honor which the Idol gaineth by him or giveth to him, may be turned upside down. Secondly, for so much as in every ceremony we are to provide not only for the glory of God, but also for the good of our neighbor, therefore not only for his honor must all this honor be despoyled, but also all show thereof, as these words show, Apparet illud esse prohibitum nein honorem alienorum Deorum aliquare vtamur; aut vti existimemur, sic eam accipiendo vt quamvis animo contemnamus eos tamen qui nostrum animum ignorant ad haec honoranda aedificemus. We talk of an use of Cross and Surplice with a diverse mind from papists. but talk only. Do not papists themselves gather out of this rule of Augustine, that it sufficeth not in mind to hate our service and our ceremonies, unless all show be made also of their hatred by forbearing both the one and the other? Sygismund in heart honoreth the Sacrament: yet when Rochezana carrieth it in procession, he will not uncover to it, and all to avoid offensive show, Ne Rochezanam approbasse videretur. It is not enough for good Eleazar that he eat no swine's flesh, but certain meat of his own bringing, which although of it self it was lawful, yet must he rather loose his life then eat it, for that show of conformity to Idolaters in the eating of swine's flesh which it bore and carried with it. Secundus is commanded to deliver his Bibles, he maketh answer, Christianus sum & non Traditor. Herevpon he is commanded to deliver aliqua ecvola (that is) certain stuff which was cast aside for that it had no use. Will he not deliver this to save his life? no not this. It was lawful, but it had a show of their sin whom the Church called Traditores for their delivering the holy books to be burnt by the officers of the tyrant Dioclesian. Last of all, Was it lawful for the poor man at Berne to use the ceremony of fasting from flesh with a diverse mind from the papists? then was he to blame to burn as he did, to avoid all show of communicating with them. But if Augustine may be his judge, he was not to blame; who holdeth it better to die for famine, then to eat an Idolothite. This as it may excite our governors to hate the sign of the Cross & the Surplice (they being polluted in the highest degree of Idolothisme, so to second the ancient zeal of their forerunners in the faith, who hated all customs of the alienes even in common use it self, and all things else if but only touched by them: so may it justify our loss of livings rather then to honor them apertissime by advancing them into the service of the most high, so to follow aloof of those worthy witnesses who leave example to loose life, not living only, rather then incur so much as a show, so much as in the least ceremony of the least approbation of foreign Idolatry.

#Sect. 8. Two several sins committed in retaining the Cross: The first reserving it as a special and scandalous Monument of Idolatry past: with six reasons against the retaining of it.

WE have vewed the sign of the Cross in his Idolothisme considered in general; now to the end we may proceed, descend we down to the several sins thereof, which are two. The first, in that he is a monument of Idolatry past. The second, in that he is an enticement to Idolatry for time to come. Concerning the former, what is Monumentum? but that which mouet mentem (saith Augustine? ) but now the Cross cannot but admonish the mind of popery, & that to think the better of it, as long as they see it, being the principal badge of popery; enthroned and sitting in a Sacrament amongst us, where ought to be seen no sign but such as men should tremble at. Moses cross must be pulled down because no (monument) of any heinous crime committed must be seen amiddst the holy people of God. Is the Cross a Monument of what he hath revenged and punished but none of that which he hath served and honored? It is too good a Monument for a wicked man to have his body buried in the Church-yarde, or his name mentioned in the Church-service among the names of holy men. And is it not then too good a Monument for the Cross to be revived at the Fonte, and there be mentioned honorably, together with the sign of the water, the sign of the covenant? What that these ceremonies of Cross and Surplice are expressly termed relics of popery (as they are left behind in our church) by the best of our writers. In regard hereof, say we to them as we are prompted, get ye hence, for ye are menstruous. Yea as our own Laws enjoin, and leaders direct. root we out thoroughly all the monuments of popish Idolatry, even to the least relique; even to the least leavem; even to the least quisquilliae. even to the least foot step; which if it be done, all the friends in the world are not able to save the cross, it being so grande a monument of popery, as that the papist is tickled at the very heart to see it entertained amongst us. What then letteth that we should not renew the ancient request Placuit ab Imperatoribus gloriosissimis peti vt reliquiae Idololatriae in quibuscunque locis omnimodo deleantur. Seeing all the reasons are liable against these Relics controversed, which moved Aurelius with his Collegues to sue for the razeing of those remainders of Idolatry which in their times were left. First, the Cross is a Jewel of the harlot; while we keep it we repent not of former adultery as we ought. Secondly, it is a Trophy of Antichrists conquest; while it standeth Christ is dishonored and put to shame. Thirdly, it is a sign of commoderation with God's enemies; while we bear it we forbear to confess against them as we are commanded Thou shalt destroy all signs and monuments of their religion, because thou art an holy people to the Lord. Fourtly, It is a stumbling block to the popishly minded, while it continueth, some regard seemeth to be had of their service and of their ceremonies. Fifthly, It is a snare like to one of Canaan's monuments. while it surviueth, occasion is given to abuse, yea to worship it. Sixthly, It is a vanity, even as every Idol is, which can no way be profitable. More then these six reasons, the best of our writers cannot allege against any monument of Idolatry, which being all of them found in these relics controuersed, it is apparent that the jealousy of the Lord is provoked to see them: and that it standeth not with the holiness of our Church to keep them, whose duty is to pollute the ornament; to hate the employment of every Idol, and to account his gold execrable, his meat abhominable, his name it self detestable: yea a name to be rooted out from under heaven. This duty we see practiced from time to time. Jacob not only burning the bodies of his Idols, but abolishing their earings too. Elias abhorring an Altar of Baals, as well as Baal himself. Jehu not only defacing Baals Image, but his Temple and Vestrie also. Daniel detesting the meat of Bell as well as Bell himself. And Joshua (lastly) razing forth whatsoever monument he could find of Canaan's Idolatry. The faithful in Jacob when they reform and purge the Church to take away the sin thereof, make all the stones of the Altars as Chalke stones broken in pieces, that the groves and Images may not stand up. That which is left of first love in the decayed church of Ephesus hateth all Nicolaitan participation in the appurtenances of Idolatry. Thus Augustine, the Christian soul that is truly thankful for her conversion from Idolatry, non vult in terra sua aliquid esse in contumeliam Dei, speaking of the monuments of former Idolatry which is repented of. To this agreeth that of Chrysostom, with what face canst thou give thanks for thy conversion from Idolatry with that mouth which thou defilest with the leavings of the Idol?

#Sect. 9. The second sin committed in retaining the Cross, is the danger of Idolatry in it for time to come.

THe second hurt of the Crosses Idolothisine is the danger that is in it for the time that is to come. For the relics of Idolatry, saith Augustine, etiam sopitae solunt recale scere. What then will these relics do of Cross and Surplice? which as sparcles fly about and are not only not quenched, but also not covered so much as with embers? And the common sort of men are entangled with superstition oftentimes even in the midst of Religion thoroughly purged, What hope then they can be pure, when unpurged relics lie in their way, as stumbling blocks and snares unto them? Seeing then principalis prudentiae est, omne malum initio opprimere, & serpentem morbum legum medicinaresecare, Yea a duty, ante prouidere remedia quam morbus increscat, in consideration that sera sunt remedia quae adactis iam vulneribus opponuntur. The Cross and Surplice should be so far from the open honor they have in the worship of God amongst us, as that indeed they should be forbidden to be in sight at all. What doest thou in the way towards Egypt, to drink the dirty waters of Geon (saith Jerome? ) meaning that the very way must be stopped which leadeth back to the Egypt spiritual; & every pleasant fountain, barred & kept from the people that may enlure to return. The same Jerome proveth by God's stopping of the Israelites way with thorns, least they should return to their former lovers; that there is need of a strong fence from all occasions, that may reduce unto Idolatry. The very Papists themselves accord hereto when they affirm, that to keep the people of Israel from Idolatry, God forbad there should be any Image at all amongst them; and justify the Council of Eliberis, in forbidding every Image for a remedy to prevent Idolatry. To come to our own Church we must have a care (saith it) not only for our selves, and for our own times, but also for other Churches abroad; and for our posterity, for whose sake, we must away with all Images, that may be abused, after the ensample of Epiphanius: much more with them which have been abused already, in consideration that Idolatry will come of them, which is an inseparable accident to them. All these premisses being considered, can any doubt, but the sign of the Cross sinneth through Idolatry against God's first commandment? What our own Law? pronouncing that in the Church an Idol which hath been, is, or is likely to be worshipped? Have we not here an Act of Parliament, backing all that hath been written hitherto? If any say, the Homilies meaning, is of Images that are material, a double reioynder is ready at hand. First, The Cross cannot be kept in, but by this general position, that Images and all may be had in the Church, ad vsum historicum, a point which our opposites stoutly maintain, but the Holy refuteth strongly. Secondly, The Homilie is grounded upon these general tenets every similitude of everything, every likeness of anything at all, even all kinds of similitudes are unlawful in the Church which have been, are, or be likely to be worshipped, which take more hold of the sign of the Cross, then of many other Images that be material. To conclude therefore, the sign of the Cross and Surplice are Idols, Idolothites, Monuments of Idolatry, and Incentiues to the same, therefore they must pack (cum pannis) out of God's holy worship.

#Sect. 10. How some contrary to the Papists meaning and writings deny adoration to be given to the aëreall Cross.

THe friends of the Cross deny (some of them) our antecedent. Some of them our consequent: which disagreement is such amongst them, as that on both the former heads, there grow more heads then one. For even of them that deny our proposition, some stand on this, the sign of the Cross is not purposely adored by the Papists; some on this, we confess the Papists have a purpose to adore it, but they cannot: the vanishing nature of this sign being not capable of their worship. As for the former of these twain, they coin a distinction between a material Cross and aerial, as if the Papists did only worship the Cross material with Latria which is abolished, and not this aerial sign, the use whereof is urged. And this distinction is held forth by them, as if it were an Aiax buckler, under which they are secure, whereas (indeed) it will not serve so much as for an Ostrich-bush, to cover the least part of their nakedness from our agumentes which they can never awarde nor answer. First, whatsoever Papists write, of the Cross in general, that must be meant of every Cross, else both of the laws are broken, of which the Canonical speaketh thus: In toto partem non est dubium contineri. The Civil thus, semper specialia, generalibus in sunt. And the Jesuits words are clear, bactenus probatum manet, in vniversum, signum crucis, in honor & reuerentia habendum, ex quibus idem dicendum de signo in aere, &c. Another speaking of the aerial Cross by name hath these words in special of it: Modus hujus adorationis iuxta ea, quae de imaginibus & de nominibus sacris diximus, est explicandus. Do they not press the miracles of the aerial sign when they prove the Crosses worship? Give they not instance in the Cross aerial, when they prove the Crosses virtue? not to be tedious; the testimonies which they cite belong they not indifferently now to the aerial, now to the material, as they first come to hand or serve fittest for the purpose. Secondly, we must not distinguish of their worship, when they themselves distinguish not. Now they hold that every Cross is to be worshipped, Quocun{que} modo expressa, as they speak of themselves: Sub quacun{que} figura à se facta, & fabricata (say we) and our writers of them. Photios a Patriarch of Coustantinople doth thus interpret the Council of Nice, erucis signum adoramus, &c. We adore the sign of the Cross, by which the troupes of Devils are chased, and diseases cured, grace and power being once exhibited in the samplar which now diffuseth like virtue down into the examples: worshipping therefore all these (to wit) the Image of Christ and his Cross, and the note of his Cross with honor, and with adoration &c. But let a Council it self speak. Dignum est, &c. It is a worthy thing and according to congruity of reason, and ancient tradition, that for the honor of the principal, all other deriuatiue Images should be honored, and adored as typus praetiosa crucis, the type of the precious Cross. When Papists cite out of Sedulius,

And out of Chrysostom, Crucis effigies & figura colenda est, adoranda{que}. Who can shut out the aerial sign which is a figure of the Cross, as well as the material? There is nothing more often in their writings, then the adoration of the sign. Adoramus crucis signaculum. Crucis signum adorandum est omnibus populis. Adorandum est signum Christi. Signum crucis adoramus, with the like. Mow I ask which is the sign of the Cross properly? Bellarmine, answereth me. It is the aerial Cross. And will any man then exclude from these speeches the Cross aerial, it being signum crucis properly and only include the material Cross, which so properly is not such? Thirdly, the same reasons that move Papists to worship the material Cross, are all found in the Cross aerial, what one of them is wanting? The material bulk? But we worship not anything, say they, for the matter, but for Christ's representation in it. I ask (then) wherefore worship they the Cross? because it representeth Christ's death: that doth the aerial Cross as well as the material. Wherefore worship they the Cross? because it is consecrate in Christ his blood; and receiveth virtue from it: this is common to the aerial, as well as to the material. Wherefore worship they the Cross? because God is present in it, to work spiritually and miraculously by it. This is done by the aerial as well as by the material. Last of all, wherefore worship they they cross; because it is, Quid ad Christum pertinens; Vexillum eius; signum eius. Because it pertaineth to Christ, and is his sign and banner? The aerial sign hath as great a part in these titles, as any material Cross. Fourthly, we have flat and evident testimonies for the adoration of this sign: go we to the fountain of the Crosses Idolatry, the second Council of Nice. Which after it had said that the Cross is holy in it self, and to be worshipped, subioyneth this of the aererall Cross by name, satisfacit nobis figura, &c. The figure is sufficient for us, which then receiveth sanctification, when it is adored by us. For whether we imprint him as a seal in the forehead, or whether we draw in the empty air the sign thereof, we hope and believe it is able to put the Devil to flight. Euthymius having to deal against the Armenians, that consecrated the material Cross, after their manner before they adored it, disproueth them by the holiness of the sign aerial, which by the common consent between them, was deemed more holy then the material, and so more worthy of adoration, although it were not consecrate. Damascene after he had taught that the sign of the Cross is to be worshipped, inferreth instances, and citeth figures which belong to the Cross aerial. The University of Colen, after much spoken of the Cross, hath this conclusion, Sitanta est, &c. If the efficacy of our Lord's Cross be so great, when he is only with the hand imprinted in the fluyd air, then why should it not be the same when he is pictured in a table? So speaking, as if the aerial Cross & the material were of the same condition. What should I here set down at large the words of Bellarmine? Who calleth it, Signūsacrū, & venerabile, An holy sign and venerable. Of Costerus, who saith, that the sign of the Cross whereby men do fence themselves, is, Summa veneratione colendum, Is to be worshipped with most high veneratiō or trouble myself with the large discourse of Gretzerus or any other? The two last Jesuits that have written shall suffice. Thus Suarez, ex his intelligitur, &c. By this it is given to understand, that the sign of the Cross is venerable, and worthy to be adored. For he hath an holy use & signification. Neither is it material that he consisteth in a matter and action transeunt, because the only diversity of matter, when the figure and signification is the same, doth not hinder adoration. Our other witness is Vazquez. Whose main theme runneth in these words, Non solum cruxilla, &c. Not only is that Cross to be adored, on which Christ died, but also every figure of the Cross, whether it be carved or painted, in some matter permanent, or whether it be fashioned with the hand or with the fingers in the air, then which, what can be plainer spoken on our side? Fifthly, Our own writers are our witnesses in this truth. Yea, our enemies their own judges. Goulartius is cited against us by Master Hooker. Now he findeth even manifold Idolatries in the aerial sign of the Cross. So that although it were indifferent when the Fathers first used it, yet now he holdeth it no longer Indifferent, but an Idol to be abolished. Danaus giveth his judgment thus, Etiam crucis signo in aere facto, &c. Even to the aerial Cross which hath no subsistence. Bellarmine contendeth, religious worship ought to be given. Doctor Whitaker's answering Duraeus, about the aerial Cross, hath these words, Idololatriam vestram, &c. Your Idolatry and superstition whereby you worship the Cross with Latria, and sign yourselves daily with Crosses innumerable, as the Devils do like well, so all good men with all their hearts detest with execration. Nay our most bitter opposites themselves, that most desire to clear the Cross, have felt the light of this truth so brightly shining in their own consciences, as that one of them acknowledgeth that the very expression and signification of the Cross, is the same to the Papists, that the horn of Jupiter's Goat, was to the heathens, and that they give to it the supreme honor of our Savior Christ himself. An other citeth out of Vazquez, that they worship the Cross and the sign thereof (to wit) the aerial sign, for that is Vazques Doctrine. A third maketh this difference between the aerial Cross of the Papists, and ours at home, that they worship theirs, but we do not ours. Neither hath the shift which some have broached any covert to hide them. They only give a reverence to it (say they) whereas the material Cross they worship even with Latria which is the worship of God himself. For to omit all former profess which manifestly show, they worship the aerial sign in the very same manner with the Material? What distinction call you this which is without difference? For do not the Papists directly tell us, that Idem sunt reuerentia & adoratio, Reverence and adoration are one and the same, that which Doctor Fulke long since observed. He confoundeth reverence and adoration. Consider the titles themselves of their Treatises▪ Go they not thus, De veneratione, when they write of the worship due to the material Cross it self, or to relics, or to Saints? All which worships are Idolatrous? Consider the reasons used in their Treatises, prove they not the Euchariste, the Image, the relique, must be adored, because they are venerabiles? Consider (lastly) the conclusions of their Treatises. We have ( summa veneratio ) ascribed by them, to the aerial sign of the Cross. When the highest adoration which they give to the greatest Image is but a reverence; a godly reverence; a due reverence; a small reverence; to wit, such a small reverence only, as is that reverent salutation which we sinful men do give in love one to another.

#Sect. 11. How the ayrye sign of the Cross is Idolized and worshipped though transcant.

THe second sort of our opposites grant their wanteth no will in the Papist to Idolize the aerial Cross, howbeit he cannot worship it, neither make an Idol of it, because it is transeunt, while one part is, the other is not, wholly it doth never subsiste; to be adored by him. And what letteth (then) to cry out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have found. Howbeit, not what Archimedes once, but quod pueri in faba now. Indeed had not this trivial shift appeared personally, when time was against a certain preacher, and deprived him; and were it not that since I see it taken up in the mouths of many others, and that it is a common gigge to shift of all things brought against this filthy Idol, by (Tushe, the aerial Cross is nothing.) I would have scorned to have looked on it, much more to have answered it. But now, what matter is it, whether the object of Idolatry be capable of pollution or no? Honor non est in honorato sed in honorante, and as S • per • i & imp • spiritus, non nidore ac funio sacrificiorum sicut nonnulls v •• i opinantur, sed hominum pascuutu • erroribus, So it is not for any pollution in the Idol it self, that we are commanded to root it out, but to cure the disease of their error that commit Idolatry to him. Secondly, on how lain a leg doth this reioynder stand? Nothing can be made an Idol, whose parts are transeunt and aerial, and presently vanishing. Which if it be true, then the Idol of Pelusium, which the Fathers condemn for the greatest that ever was, was none at all. I know it cannot be unknown to the ordinary of this case, that the heathen adored the wind and the air it self. For even to the fluyd air under the name of Dius & Dia were there Temples without Rome, that were uncovered at the top. To omit the flood Nile which the old Egyptians worshipped, & the fluminum lapsus which the Galli did adore. Now by this reason none of these were Idols. For what more aereal thē the wind and the air it self? & what more transeunt in the partes then rivers, falling down and running? And what will be answered to the name Jesus (the name of him that is God blessed forever?) more aerial then the Cross, because a found? which thus describeth it self in the Poet,

Say we (then) the material Cross is an Idol with the Papists, not the aerial? we may say as well the material name of Jesus (as it is painted or engraved) is an Idol with them, but not the aerial. Whereas vox Jesus, velaudita vel visa, is indifferently worshipped by them. By some of them improperly, by others properly: so that our writerers do not err who censure their bowings to the aerial name of Jesus, for Idolatrous, to which also there is an indulgence annexed for pardon of sin. Thirdly, the reason why the aerial sign of the Cross is thought (though worshipped by the Papists) to be made no Idol by them, is the slender subsistence it hath, for which men say, it is a thing of nothing. First here, how cannot the stomach be moved to see God & the Church so mocked? The Church is mocked, because commanded to make a thing called a Cross, which is no Cross; because Cross-wise never existing. God is more mocked by this opinion. For what have we here brought into his service? to wit a Cross, not a Cross; a thing that is nothing, like Sphinxes riddle; a man, not a man: standing, not standing; upon a tree, not a tree? Secondly; the Cross had as little subsistence in the primative Church, as it hath in these late days. In these hath it so little being, that popish Idolatry cannot discredit it? then was it such a thing of nothing in those times also, that the use of the Fathers could not credit it, and now it is so thin a sharke, that our own Church cannot countenance it neither, though command it most unworthy. Thirdly, know we not that it was never denied to Bellarmine that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in near sense and signification, is a vanishing aerial shadow, like the vmbra of one dead in Eustathius, which being true, the vanishing ayrenes of the Cross furthereth (indeed) but stayeth not the idolizing of it. So doth it further the guilt of it (likewise) Quasi vero. &c. as if it were not better (saith Augustine ) to worship a stone which hath a being, then in the doting of our fancy, to adore that which hath no being? As if it were not better (say I) to adore a Cross of stone, then a Cross aerial, which our Opposites give forth, is a thing of nothing. When the Septuagint ad to the Hebrew (God's that are not.) Jerome liketh the amplification well enough in regard of [ not being in subsistence] as heresies are Idols so much the worse (saith he) (and so by consequent aerial Crosses) because in similitudinem vmbrarum, transeunt & intereum; They vanish & pass away like shadows. Fourthly, be the subsistence of the Cross outwardly never so transeunt, subsistence it hath in the minds of men constant enough, yea too constant as is seen by our opposites. What a thing is it, that they who talk so much of the [nothingnes] of the [vanishing] of the [not subsisting] of this sign, should make (notwithstanding) so great a thing of it in their hearts, and give it so permament subsistence there, that neither the tears of the poor, nor the suites of the rich, neither the scandal of religion, nor the damage of the Church; neither the triumph of the Papist, nor the worsting of the Protestant, nor anything else, by any means possible, can cause it to vanish away from thence? What though the Rayn-bow be but a shadow of the sun, transeunt and vanishing, as singeth the Poet. Mille rapit varios aduer sa luce colores? the mind for all that doth apprehend it, as a constant sign of God's covenant, which hath no show nor shadow of changing. Mulium differt, &c. there is great difference (saith Augustine ) between knowing a thing as it is made, and as it is in it self. as the straitnes of a line, is known one way as it is conceived in the understanding, another way as it is written in the dust. What then, though the Cross be transeunt, as he is made, yet he is permanent as he is considered in se ipso, as a line is permanent in the mind, though not in the dust, wherein he is drawn. For the Geometer draweth his lines in the dust, that he may mende and mar as he list; dash out and draw new, when (yet) in his understanding they are permanent, and in his mind, as we may see by Archimedes, whose lines if they had not been deeper printed in his mind, then in his dust, he would not have been found poring on them, while Syracusa was in surprizing. To be short, that which Augustine saith of a sound, though the parts of it be transeunt: Quod eius vti{que} peractum est sonuit: Quod autem restat sonabit. Yet it is totally & actually existing in the mind, that which is past in the memory; that which is to come in the intention, all of it together in the affection; that may be applied to the cross aerial. So that the vanishing ayrines of it, excuseth it not frō being an Idol with the papists; condemneth it with us to our greater guilt, who though an aerie vanishing idol do yet nourish more thē a vanishing likening towards it in our harts

#Sect. 12. Reasons with objections answered, why the Cross may not be entertained by us, &c.

WE have strengthened our Antecedent, and proved the Cross to be an Idol among the Papists. Now must we show the strength of our consequent against the second sort of Opposites, who confessing that the Papists Idolize it, make this their iussue, It may be used by us notwithstanding, because with us (say they) it is no Idol. First, we are not only forbidden to continue in our own uncleanness, but also to touch any uncleanness of [theirs] as if that which is vnclane with Idolaters, could no way be made clean to us. They who think otherwise speak the language of Ashdod. What though the papists use the cross, what is that to us? Just so Baronius, siquis dicat Gentiles habuisse in vsu aquam lustralem, quid tum? And we use the Cross which they use, not imitating it, but correcting it rather. Just so Suarez, We worship Images, which Gentiles worship, non imitando sed corrigendo. Secondly, It is with us in the service of God an image which without warrant we have made to ourselves, therefore an Idol. It is an Image consecrated (that is) addicted to holy use, therefore an Idol. It is a mean to many, whereby they worship, and many hold it a part of God's worship, therefore an Idol, to them especially, who serve herein quod ipsi fingunt even their own fancies. Thirdly, There is a Metaphoricall Idol that transgresseth, and an Idolatry secundum similitudinem, although not secundum speciem [per accidens] though not [per se.] Whereof, let them that be able excuse this sign, for we cannot. Be there a few in the Realm (think ye) that do put as much confidence in the cross, as the couerous in his wealth? Now if any shall say, that for this the cross must be no more removed, then wealth and riches, we have to answer, that all the Fathers remove gold, and all pompous ornaments out of the Church, & all carnal lasciviousness in painting or singing, and everything else, which by the covetous or unclean, or any other, might in likelihood be made an Idol there. Fourthly, There is an Idol [reatu] through guilt remaining, and an Idol [actu] by actual committing Idolatrous sin, and the sign of the Cross is an Idol with us of the first sort, if not of the second. Idolatrous worship is the soul of an Idol (say some of our Opposites) therefore seeing we worship him not, his soul is departed from him. First, Augustine accounteth, that the ceremonies of the Jews are dead, and thereupon argueth that they were to be abolished. Now, the Cross ought to be as dead unto us totally (for it is not better the the ceremonies of the Jews) and we have as great need to bury his carcase, which if it be left above the ground, will not the stink thereof be intolerable? And seeing our reviving of him, with a new style which we say is not idolatrous (for as yet he liveth in popery) beareth show (at least) of favor to him, remember we the ancient canon, Nos quibus viventibus non communicauimus, mortuis communicare non possumus, we may not communicate with him dead, with whom we might not communicate when he was alive. Secondly, we must not compare any creature of God with an Idol which is the creature of the Deity: if we keep our selves within the bounds of the scripture, we must compare the Cross with an harlot. Say we (then) the Cross is no Idol now, because it hath no adoration, which is the soul of an Idol? this is as if we should reason, this woman ceaseth to be an adulteress any longer, because now at this present she is not actually in that copulation, which is the life, & the very soul of adulterous crime. No, an harlot remaineth an harlot though her sin be past: & so the sign of the cross an Idol, though his Idolatry be ceased amongst us. And look what laws are made against the bodily harlot (although repenting) they are all in equity liable against the Cross, although purged thoroughly from former Idolatry, which I would to God it were. He (then) that will not permit his Priest that standeth before him, and ministereth unto him, to marry an harlot (though repenting) will he endure the sign of the Cross (the harlot her self) to minister before him in his Sacrament? Yea, to be married to his Sacrament, and matched with it? He that will not suffer the price of an harlot to be brought into his house, to the benefit of it: will he endure the sign of the Cross (the harlot her self) to the defiling of his house, to be brought not only into his temple, but also into the service thereof? and there to be rated at such a [price] as that the holy priests themselves, that before did minister before him, must now become a price for her, to bring a greater sin upon our Church, then that which Ioell taxed once, they gave the child for the harlot: seeing they are the Fathers themselves, even the Fathers of many in Christ, that are sold by us for the Cross?

Last of all, he that will not permit the issue of the harlot, to bear any office in his congregation, till both her memory and her blood be quite worn out, will he endure the sign of the Cross (the harlot her self) and that even flagranti crimine, while her fornication reaketh, & Idolo viuo, (as speaketh Tertullian ) while the Idol (the Cross abroad) is yet living? I refer it to indifferent judgment, whether this be not like that rebellion of a wife, whē she putteth her lover into office, in the house of her husband, if not in despite of his teeth (as usually we speak) yet sure underneath his nose. Fifthly, there is an Idol more strictly taken, and an Idol of larger sense, which will include the Cross. For the better understanding hereof, we must borrow a distinction from the scholemen, by which a thing may be guilty of Idolatry, essentialiter, participatiue, or causaliter: which our doctrine at home doth back, that is confirmed by Act of Parliament; Affirming that to be an Idol in God's service, which is, hath been, or is like to be worshipped. What [is] worshipped by our selves, that is an Idol essentially. What [hath] been worshipped, or [is now] worshipped abroad by others, that is an Idol by [participation]. What is [likely] to be worshipped, that is an Idol [causing] idolatry in time to come. In which sense Gideon's Ephod may be termed an Idol quodāmodo; and that it may be even before it was adored. And hereby are many objection answered. Our Writers deny an Image in the Church (say some) to be an Idol, in case it be not worshipped. True, an Idol essentially, as many of them as desire to have Images thrust out of the Church (of which sort there be a great number) they hold them guilty of Idolatry by participation and by occasioning, or else why will they thrust them out? A second objection is wont to be made. If the sign of the Cross be an Idol with us, then must men separate from our Church, and from our Baptism; which followeth not. From Idols (essential) men ought to separate by the example of the Levites and the two Tribes that made separation from the calves of Jeroboam. From Idols by participation and occasion men are to keep their own selves pure, but not to separate, by the ensample of the Godly, who separated not from the Temple of God, for Damascus Altar there, or from the church because of her high places. It is objected once more against us, If our sign of the Cross be an Idol, then our Ministers that do make it are Idolaters, and our Churches idolatrous also. This followeth not neither. For denomination being from the form, and the Cross not being formally an Idol amongst us, but materially (I speak in comparison to the Cross popish, in regard whereof, we may be said to use that, which is an Idol, but we do not use it idolatrously) therefore as Doctor Fulke concludeth of the Lutherans for having Images in their Churches, the same must be said of all those Protestants that will retain Crosses, they sin against the first two commandments (through Idolothisme) not directly thorough Idolatry, and therefore they may not be termed Idolaters. Howbeit by way of reduction, Idolothisme is in some sort guilty of Idolatry, as showeth the Apostle, who in steed of saying Fly from Idolothisme, saith, fly from Idolatry. This Idolatry by reduction what is it else, but idolatry by participation, as doth appear by the 18.20. and 21. verses following. But this participation is not in our Cross (will our Opposites say) who first, least happily they should mistake us, we desire to recount the ancient distinction plus est communio, quam participatio, nam ad hanc satis est partem habere, sed ad illam requiritur, vt prorsus vniamur: atque totum percipiamus, quod nobis proponitur. This being premised (to wit) that we charge the Cross, not with a total communion, but with a participation in part only, we thus bring in our evidence against him.

#Sect. 13. We commit Idolatry in receiving the Cross, because we do not Zealously banish it.

FIrst, we are guilty of participatiō in defect through omission, because we come short of that zeal against this Idolothite of Rome, which is enjoined in this word [fly frō it.] For, this doth not coidly bid us to avoid it, but (as it were pulling us out of the flame) it crieth fervently, use all diligence to separate it from thee. Be zealous in heart to detest it with honor, & shake thine hands from the least communication with it, etiam minima ex parte. This partaking forbidden again, Ephe. 5.11. Have no fellowship, but reprove them rather, is committed three special ways: Imitando, coadiuuando, consentiendo. By imitating, helping, and consenting. Of all which three the Cross is guilty. Forinpart we imitate the Papists in making like them a Cross like theirs, in the very same Sacrament to many of the very same ends; which being more then [minima ex parte] it maketh us participants, like unto the Corinthian eating. We make no account of the Cross (we say) so they judged the Idol nothing. We use not the Cross for any liking to the popish crossing, but for peace and for the winning of them: so the Corinthians did not eat for any honor to the Idol, but to continue love & likening with old friends, & to draw them to the faith. In regard hereof they bring nothing, who ro clear our cross frō imitation, say, we use it diversely, & to a good end, & lawul. First, this stoppeth our mouths before Papists: whom how shall we answer, alleging the very same defense for their Images (as well they may) it being as lawful for thē to erect Christian Images against Pagan Images, in holier manner, as is to erect in holier sort, a Protestants Cross, against their popish one. Secondly, the very using of that rite which heretics use, hath always been held a following of them, and an unlawful imitation. The first Council of Nice will not celebrate Easter on the same day, whereon the Jews did keep the Passover. Wherefore? they hold it to be an imitation of the Jews, and the same unlawful to them, as these words show: Indigna res est sanctissimū eum diem, imitatione at{que} consuetudine Iudaorum celebrare. Again, the fourth Council of Toledo will not use the rite of three-fold dipping which the heretics used, because they held it to be an imitation evil in the show at least, to them especially who take no knowledge animi nostri of our diverse manner of using. Thus go their words, Propter vitandum (autem) schismatis scandalum, vel haeretici dogmatis vsum simplam teneamus Baptismi mersionem, ne videantur apud nos, qui tertiô mergunt, haereticoruns approbare assertionen, dum sequuntur & morem. Thirdly, the pretence of winning Papists, cleareth us not from an unlawful imitation, but yoketh us with them unlawfully. Here I think worthy to be remembered the words of Gelasius, We may condescend for peace, but not descend down into any [praecipitium] hoc descensu num saluare est aegrotantem, an cum languenti consumi? He is preposterous that willeth the Physician to be sick, and not rather the sick to receive health from him. Is this the best way to repair peace, or rather that, which rejecting all contagion, and preventing all infection, keepeth the unity & the communion pure, vnmixt, and undefiled? The way to help one that is sick (saith Augustine ) is not febres mentiri, but in the strength of his health cum patientis affectu, to minister the means that may rid his sickness. Jerome writing of Peters imitating the Jews in their ceremonies: Noua clementia Apostoli (saith he) &c. a new gentleness of the Apostle, while he goeth about to make the Jews to be Christians, he himself (a Christian) is made a Jew. For he could not reduce the luxurious to frugality unless he proved luxurious himself; nor mercifully succor miserable men, unless he felt himself in misery. The effect is, we must not make our selves sick, for the healing of others: neither must Protestants participate with Papists, to reduce them from popery, but in compassion heal them rather with medicine contrary to their disease; that is with all purity from their error, and from all show of communicating with the same.

#Sect. 14. The second kind of participation with Idolatry is when we may hinder it, and do not.

THe second participation is [Coadiuvando] by helping and furthering, from which, who so flieth as this Scripture doth command, he chaseth the Idolothite before him, and maketh it to fly as from a whirlwind. For this text requireth all possible diligence to resist Idolatry by preventing those occasions which the Idolothite procureth, so that from hence Augustine of old, our own writers of late, collect, that they participate with Idolaters, who do not root all the Monuments and the Relics of Idolatry out of their territories and possessions. Qui non prohibit cùm potest, iubet, (saith the Poet.) He only is guiltless, saith the civil Law) qui cù scit, prohibere non potest: And the Canon Law thus, Qui non emendat & corrigit, is committit. Qui parcit vitijs, is fauet nutriendis. Error cui non resistitur, approbatur: negligere, cùm possis deturbare, nihil aliud est quam fouere. Non caret scrupulo socitatis occullae, qui manifesto crimini, desinit obuiare. What then? we should have grubbed up all root of bitterness. We have left a Surpplice and a Cross behind for a stompe in the ground which will reflourish. We should have taken all evil away from the midst of Israel. Our eyes have spared the abettors of it; nay our hands have advanced them. We should, have purged out the old leaven, that we might be a new lump that is unleavened, we suffer it still to abide in the house▪ yea more, we set it upon the table. We should have slain every Amalekite beast, we keep the Cross, the Surplice, and other popish rites alive, because we think they are the best amongst those which we have abolished, upon pretence they are fat (that is) sit to be used in the sacrifice of the Lord. Last of all, we should have shut our lips from saluting the Cross, we reach forth that Ahab's have to embrace, yea to lift up into the charet, wherewith indeed we should have slain him. What excuse is left for us? Popery is furthered, if so notorious brokers of it be not resisted Whereas we (as if our conniuency were too little) even command them and commend them, and plead for them. Now, Quo modo decipi simplices possunt, nisi venenata pocula, quodam melle perlinirentur, ne vsque qua{que} sentirentur insuauia quae essent futura. The Cross and Surplice being Idols, must needs be poisonful; my glory therefore join thou not with their sweet tongues that sprinkle them over with fair excuses, as it were with honny. Non grandis est differentia vtrum laethum inferas, an admittas▪ mortem languentibus, qui cum possit non excludit, inflixit: and these do more then barely admit, or not resist. The third participation here forbidden is consent & approbation, not only manifest but also secret, not only by our selves intended, but so interpreted by the Lord. When this text here willeth to [fly] from the Idolothite, think we an open consent unto Idolaters, is only forbidden? No, the Corinthians did not think they consented to Idolatry, even as we now think of our selves: they consented (notwithstanding) in their eating the Idolothite, so do we now approve of popery. If any ask how? the Laiwer will tell him, what a secret consent is in general. And as for the secret consent in hand a Jesuit himself will answer, that though a man doth not intend to consent to heretics, yet, that then he is guilty, when in appearance he maketh that show of communication, which maketh the Lord to [interpret] that he consenteth. The question then is, how the Lord will interpret our retayle of popish rites, which may be assoylde, by that interpretation which he gave once of Jacob's catriage. Jacob loveth Leah well enough if he may be suffered to be his own judge▪ but why (then) doth he not take her into him as well as Rahell? This argued he loved her not in so high a degree as he should, therefore doth the Lord [interpret] that he doth hate her. In like manner we hate the Papists well enough in our own judgment but why (then) put we not away from us, these Thamars of theirs, which they have defiled, as well as other reformed Churches? this argueth we hate it, then not in so high a degree as we ought. How can (then) the Lord but [interpret] that we love them and approve them. We are in the Angels case of Pergamos and of Thiatyra. We have some • eale against Nichol • itan Idolothisme, as our removal of many of Rome's trumperies showeth▪ to which notwithstanding like these Angels we consent, in that we proceed not to an utter riddance of them. We are in the prophet of Bethel • case, we have some zeal against the bread and water of Rome, with which notwithstanding we participate, as he did with that of Bethel; in that by the persuasion of our elder prophets, we do not forbear them in their society. Last of all, we bear some proportion, though not total, with Eli's case; we abhor that any fornication should be committed within the Tabernacle, but because the harlots there have proceeded out of the loins of our own brains (for so we may say of the Cross and Surplice) therefore we are loath to thrust them out: and do we not then consent like him? Consentire videtur (saith Gregory ) qui ad resecandum non occurrit. Si corrigere potest & dissimulat, verum est quod consensum erroris alieni habet. We see popery is spread by these pedlerie wares of hers; and yet we forbid not the opening of them. Non est liber à consensu, qui quod emendare potest, emendare negligit. Qua propter sine dubio, peccati se participem facit. Our negligence in amending the corruptions that are left is manifest to men and Angels. Consentiunt, qui licet express hoc non intendunt, facto tamen ips • , ita se gerunt, ac si intenderent. Our fact is the same whatsoever our mind is, they can but use the tites of Rome that do intend to consent to them, and so do we. In this case how can the mind be pure? In show at least. For, as Nemo creditor odisse, quorum relatione non laeditur. So none will believe we hate from the heart, the rites of Rome, as long as they see we are not grieved (I say even grieved) at the use of them.

#Sect. 15. Three objections fully answered, whereby the opposite endeuoreth to prove that to communicate with our Cross, is no Idolatry.

IT being thus proved we participate because we [fly] not from Idolothisme so far as the Corinthian should, what matter though we come not so [near] it as once the Corinthian did? Howbeit how much are we short of him. The Corinthian protested not against the Idol, we profess and publicly teach against the popish Cross (say some.) First, the Corinthian did profess, he held the Idol to be nothing, and did make known he did not eat for any honor to the Idol, but for love, and for the company of his neighbors. Secondly, the thing being known to be Idolothious, a protestation that we honor not the Idol, serveth not the turn: we must also forbear, as by the plain text of the 28. verse, so by plain reason, (to wit) because without forbearance, our protestation will seem ridiculous, neither will it be believed; if it might, yet is it no little sin towards God, Obire ease actiones, quae Idolorum cultum prae se ferunt. The second difference which our Opposites do allege is, that the Corinthian went in to the Temple of the Idol to eat, while the Idolater was eating there. But we go not into any popish Church to use the Cross together with them. First, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is not the Temple by any likelihood, but the feasting chamber rather, as doth appear by this, that the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10.21. doth not charge them for presenting themselves before the Altar of the Idol, but for being present rather in a room where is a [table] for eating only, and not an Altar for sacrificing. Secondly, Hoc est presentem vel absentem esse, sensu abesse vel presentem esse. Was not Paul present at Corinth, when he was in spirit there? So long (then) as by the use of Cross and Surplice, we seem present in good [liking] we give as great honor (well near) to popery, as the Corinthian bodily presence gave to the Idol. Thirdly, the Corinthian participated when he did eat the Idolothite even out of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it being once made known to be such, even as it was out of the Temple in private and civil use, that Bethels water, and Bels meat were unlawful. The Papists (indeed) say that the feasts the which Paul writeth against were only at the Altar, but our writers affirm the contrary, proving out of the Scriptures, that the manner was to feast at home, after the sacrifice was once ended: and out of the heathen writers likewise; for the manner of the Gentiles was the same, as appeareth by Evander, who when he had sacrificed to Hercules, invited Aeneas to a feast at home. They prove out of the Fathers (also) that the known eating of the Idolothite out of the Temple wheresoever, doth in Paul's doctrine make a man guilty of participating with the Idol. Whereby it appeareth that our using of Cross and Surplice (so it be reverent) makes us participant wheresoever we use them, and not only when we are present in the act of their Idolatry. Fouthly, our transporting of Cross and Surplice from their Temples into our Churches, is as great a participation as if we had gone to some Church of theirs in the eyes of our writers, who hold it a Corinthian sin in an high degree, to bring into holy use, any rite of the heretics. The ancients agree to this. Feasts which were used by imitation of the Gentiles are abhominable; if they be used [in ipsis locis sacris] in the very Churches themselves of the Christians. So in like manner, as it was held detestable to enter into an heretical Temple, so was it counted an execrable matter, basilicas haereticorum, sanctis vsibus applicare, to apply the Churches of the heretics to God's service, unless they were such, as they had taken from the Catholics themselves before. But whether it be as great a participation or no, as if we went into an Idols Temple after the supposed Corinthian manner. Sure I am, it is greater then that of the Corinthian was, when he did eat the Idolothite at home at a private table. For wherefore must he not be eaten, but because it returneth a certain honor to the Idol, to which it belongeth? And Omnis honor Idoli, Idololatria. And it skilleth not whether it be verus honor, or, putatiuus, it being Idolothisme when the Idol is honored by us in the estimation of other men. Now this is done when by our use of Idolatrous rites, we make their Idolatry to be thought the better of; and when alius qui Idolis seruit, gloriatur. Which cannot be avoided in our religious use of the Cross; because he that seeth thee eat the Idols meat, (saith Chrysostom ) Existimabit te non nihil Idolorum cultui defer. And Ambrose, Iudicatur non distare ab eo, qui colit Idol •• , quando non horret quod oblatum est simulachro. What that the Cross is worse then Corinthes Idolothite, even in private use and all like unto the Jewish meat? Because the very common crossing of the Papist, being known to be evil, we partake with their Idolatry if we use their Cross in private, even as they partaked with the Jewish superstition, that sat with the Jew at a private table, for that even here his meat was known to be superstitious; whereas Corinthes meat, against which Paul writeth, was often unknown to be Idolothious. The third difference which our opposites make, is this: The Cross and Surplice are sanctified by the comment of our Church, which the Corinthian Idolothite lacked and wanted. First, the Idolothite at Corinth must be forborne when he is known to be such, although sanctified by giving of thanks. This deceived the young Prophet at Bethel, he thought he might eat the bread and the water there, so it were not in the fellowship of Idolaters; in the society of an old Prophet, who commandeth him in the name of the Lord, and sanctified them before they were eaten; he thought it to be lawful enough, which is up and down our error. Augustine handleth the very case, we are to fly (saith he) from the Idolothite, as if we saw the Devil himself, and that in our own houses, not only in Idolatrous places, where some say, ego signo & sic manduc • , I cross myself and sanctify the meat before I eat: take heed of this. This were for a man to cross his mouth, and to stab his heart. What God hath sanctified, polute thou not: so what God hath polluted, sanctify thou not. No Church, no holy society, can make holy a Cross or Surplice, or any other Idolothite, because the word of God defileth them and pronounceth them unclean. Secondly, the Temple cannot sanctify what is unclean, but what is unclean can pollute the Temple. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols, saith Paul? either here he reasoneth a genere, No Idol must dwell in any Temple, therefore not in any spiritual one or à Comparatis. The material Temple must have no Idol in it, ergo not the spiritual neither. The Cross (then) being proved a notorious Idol, what maketh he in any Christian Church, or holy society, to the pollution of the same? I conclude with Jerome: The Jewish ceremonies used in our Churches (saith he) cannot make the Jews to be Christians, but they will make us Christians to be Jews: even so, our holy use of popish rites, will not make Papists to be Protestants; but they will make us Protestants to be Papists (to wit) through participation with them.

#Sect. 16. An objection of the Opposites answered, saying, they may use the Cross, because they have changed the Cross. Though there be four sorts of things that may be changed, yet the Cross is none of them.

HOwbeit; there is an hope in our Opposites, cleanely enough to shift themselves even of all this. How can we in Cross and Surplice participate with the Papists (say they) seeing we have changed the Popish Cross, and have altered it from what it was, & it is not the same. First, the consequent hereof soundeth not well in their mouths, who were wont to reason we may use the Cross although an Idol, because the sun though Idolized, because this excuse supposeth the Cross were unlawful if he were the same vnchaunged, where as that reason matcheth the Cross with the sun which remaineth, we know, vnchaunged and is even Numero, still the same. Secondly, the consequence is unsound, because of things that may be changed from their abuse, the sign of the Cross is none. The first sort of these are the things of the Idolater not Idolatrous. Which by the change of fire and water, became lawful in Moses law, like the garment of the Leaper not leprous, which being washed might be put on▪ whereas the Cross because it self is become leprous (as hath been proved) ought to be burnt, as also because it was at the first (when it was at the best) but hay and stubble which the fire of the word hath in other reformed Churches long since consumed. The second sort, are things Idolatrous, but without state in Idolatrous service. As the fountain of any Idols water, & the sun in the firmament which beholdeth without all contagion, the Idolatry that is committed to him: whereas the Image of the sun (to which the sign of the Cross now answereth) for that state which he hath had in worship Idolatrous, is not tolerable in a Christian congregation, for who can endure there the fire of the Persians? the Colossus of the Rhodians, and the Romans? or his Image of a man termed Bell in Assyria? Baal in Palestine? The third sort are things which have been in state Idolatrous: howheit, because they have been inspired by God with a purpose they should continue, therefore they may, and sometines must be changed to the use of their first inspiration. But how shall we know whether they be inspired by God? to wit, by this mark, A deo inspiraia sunt (saith Tertullian ) qua procurant meras vtilitates, certa sub sidia, honesta solatia, necessitatibus humanae vita. As the Mechanicall arts devised by Cain's Idolatrous posterity were from God, as well as the skill of clothing was, which he taught Adam immediately. To this the scholemen do agree. Aquinas teaching in rebus fructuo sis gentilium, we may communicate. Whereas in rebus infructuosis (such as are the Cross & Surplice) we may not come near them. The fourth sort, are the ordinances of the Lord, such as are the holy Sacraments which must even after abuse Idolatrous, which [change] from former superstition, be to God's service restored again. For that haec nobis nulla potest, impiorum vitiare peruersitas, they passing through their abuse without contagion, as the ray of the sun striketh into the dounghill, and is not defiled. What mean (then) our Opposites to allege Augustine likening well of Pagan rites, when they be altered to the true God? For he meaneth of Sacrifices and of Temples which were commanded in Moses law. Are Cross and Surplice commanded also? No more, are Temples commanded now (will they reply) concerning these, they have had no state in Idolatrous service, such as Cross and Surplice have, they are not mere inventions of man, as the Cross and Surplice are. When circumstances do not hinder, they bear the [Mark] formerly mentioned, of a purpose in God to continue them still (to wit, commodity and needful use) which stamp, and superscription of God's, the Cross and Surplice cannot show to prove themselves his lawful coin. They therefore who reason, A Temple may be still continued, therefore a Cross, trace the footesteppes of Tertullian's adversaries. We use physic though it be consecrate to Aesculapius, therefore a garland too: and of the Papists our own adversaries, We may retain a Pagans temple, therefore his frankencense also. ^t Tertullian denied the former consequence, because Physic is profitable, whereas a Garland was unnecessary. Our writers the latter, because a Temple hath necessary use, whereas frankencense is good for nothing, which yet is better (or not so bad) as the Cross and Surplice are. Let me, to the contrary, use a weapon of our own men. All rites abused popishly must be abolished, Nisi existant ex ijs rebus, verbis, & signis, quae dominus nobis commendauit. The sign of the Cross hath been abused popishly, and is no ordinance of the Lord; therefore he must down, when Temples sometimes may stand: as in the days of Constantine, though at other times they must be raised (necessary circumstances so requiring) as in the reign of Theodosius, some of them were, and in the time of the Council Epaunense of which before.

#Sect. 17. An enlargement and continuance of the matter contained in the former Section.

THirdly, what if the Cross might be changed, as the things forenamed may? It appeareth in sight it hath with us no change sufficient. The natural Sympathy, Nulla intercapedine impeditur, No more can the spiritual be let or stopped, which is between our and the Popish Cross, as long as the Cross hath a being in Baptism, it will offer towards the Popish no less then the needle towards the Pole; in so small a distance (also) as now is between them, they will close like the Adamant & the Iron together, neither can any wisdom of man keep them asunder; Even in our Opposites grant, the change is not total, but in part only, to wit, in the manner of using, which if it be so, there is a new patch put to the old which will (say I) nay which already hath made, the breach the worse. And to say it is not the same Cross, because a patch or a piece is diverse, it is as if the old disputers about Argo, should have said, it was not the same ship, because it is new peeced, or as if Elias might have repaired one of Baals Altars upon mount Carmell, and have sacrificed on it, upon a pretence that now it was not the same, because he had patched it, or as if Hiel should have pleaded, Jericho (indeed) is justly accursed, howbeit I (the repayrer of it) deserve no blame, for why it is not now the same, I have made a new one of it. Howbeit, that this enterchaunge of patching and peecing may the better appear to be insufficient, it shall be shown. First, that the old piece is too great; then that the new piece is too little. First our Cross hath too great a piece of the old, in regard of his honorable use. For being a vessel of Moab he should have been made a washpot, whereas now being set in Baptism, as on the cubbard where the rest of the plate standeth, he hath the place of a vessel of honor. The Idolothite is never lawful (saith Augustine ) till the honor of the Idol be most openly subverted, that is never done till his benediction be clean wiped off, this cannot be done, but by some injurious use: this use injurious who dareth offer to the Cross? When a Christian soldier came with a garland in his hand which he should have worn upon his head, he was put to death under the reign of Seuerus the Emperor, in the days of Tertullian, who defendeth this fact of his. Baronius condemneth it, but upon this ground, that it was a civil and a necessary ornament for his head, and elsewhere he is contented to parallel this Acte of his, with the caution of holy Christians, which in other Pagan rites, avoided and shunned all show of Symbolizing with them. The Cross (then) being a Symbol and badge of popery, it ought by the pattern of this example to have been turned in use frō the head to the hand at least; whereas now we see it is set still, even on the head of baptism, for a garland to adorn it, and we will not turn it so much as from religious use to civil handling, whether the Christians wished the washing of the feet, when it seemed in Augustine's days, pertinere ad baptissimum, but to pertain to baptism. Secondly; our Cross is not sufficiently changed from the popish, because too great a piece of his old bonorable names remain. For the very name it self of an Idol ought to be left, and every regardful remembrance of him, and that in civil use and all, where even a custom to say mehercule is Idolatrous to Hercules, and every other mention else of any Idol is unlawful, nisi adijciatur aliquid, quo appareat, that he is not named with honor. As for a contract, though it be civil, I must be so far from naming in it an heathenish Idol as that I sin if I keep silence when another doth name him. What watch keep I over the door of my lips (then) in case I name in the heavenly contract between God and man (for such is Baptism) this abhominable Idol of the Cross? Yea, name him there, that he may consecrate my seed to God, as a sign of the Son of man, as an holy sign of Christ, for so we are taught to speak by the doctrine of our Church, in whose practice vulgar abroad, these honorable titles do sound oftener in men's mouths, a blast to the Crosses houour, then a due and lawful praise to baptism it self. Marc. Bibulus once complained of Caesar his collegue, that he drowned his name as Castor the name of his brother Pollux. For though the Church was erected to them both, yet was it not called Pollux Temple, but the Temle of Castor only. A greater suit may the water of Baptism commence against the sign of the Cross, which never being ordained a sign of Christ at all, yet ruffleth under the honorable name, whereof it robbeth Baptism. this is a thing unworthy of us, who use to control the Papists because in their common speech, they call Corpus Christi day by the name of [God's Feast] more often, then the holy Sabbath day which was the holy Feast indeed, which God himself ordained.

#Sect. 18. Our Cross not changed from the Papistical Cross, whilst ours as also theirs resemble Christ's death: and whilst the old piece of his figure and form remaineth.

THirdly, the Cross is not changed sufficiently, all while the piece of his old offices still remain. For I ask, wherefore do Papists adore their Crosses, because they resemble Christ. If so, then all while we use the Cross to be a sign of him and of his death, we cannot deny that he retayneth, and that entirely his old Idols office with us. Fourthly, the change of the Cross is insussicient, all while the old piece of his figure, & form remaineth. We observe the cantell of the Mass book it self, drawing his lines atwhart not a sloape, which ought not to be so, because in an Idol it is the form which doth maxim afficere infirmos animos. and as for the Cross it is the form, for which the Papists do adore it. The sensers of Corah & Abiram themselves, though never consecrate to an Idol; though far from being Idols such as the sign of the cross is, were not admitted into the Tabernacle, till dispoyld of former form. The woman Idolatrous taken captive, may not be married till by the change of her outward hab it (even to hair and nails themselves) she give assurance she hath as bewayld, so also renounced her former country. Now by what outward formal change doth our Cross give security, that he hath either bewayld duly her former Idolatry, or renounced truly her Idolatrous country Rome, which hath not so much as a fair new garment dight her, which this woman was to have: unless it be in some pieces and patches only as hath been said. Sure to dissolve the two Cross lines was thought of old to be the only change sufficient to prevent the suspicion of that abuse, wherewith Papists in the highest degree, have since defiled it. This change corrumpent of the form, being not in our Church performd; our Cross remaineth the same in specie, that it was among the Papists for figura is signum always spetici. Fifthly, (therefore) our Cross is not sufficiently changed because the piece of his old [kind] is still the same. Are not the excuses of them that were bidden to the marriage said to be [ one ] for that [Communitie] of denial which was between them, though otherwise diverse in themselves? The duties of masters and of servants are they not said to be the [ same ] although different in themselves, because of that [Common] proportion that was incident to them both? Do we not hold against the Papists their oil, their lights and their Frankencense are Jewish, because in [kind] they be shadows of Christ like them? What (then) though there be some petty differences, to be given between the Popish Cross and ours, as long as our Cross partaketh of [Common] properties, of [Common] proportion; and doth [like] him shadow forth the death of Christ, he may well be termed popish, yea in some sort the same. For when we accuse them of Jewish rites, we do not require they be the same absolutely if they resemble the Jewish rites, and in their [kind] be shadows of Christ, we think it sufficient. Patere legem quam ipse tuleris, and our English Cross is popish, though absolutely he be not the same with Roomes, but in some common and general properties doth resemble him. And surueye we the Scripture herein, which flatly condemneth even all [likeness] and all proportion, and all similitude with aliene rites: as an Altar like in fashion to the Altar of Damascus, is unlawful, and a carte provided for the Ark like that which the Philistines provided for it, is no due seeking of the Lord. Survey we the practice of the Primatiue Church. A lawrell bough and a light set at the doors [like] that of Idolaters, was Iodolatrous, even in Papists own confession. Survey we late writers, they affirm the same Idolatry is amongst Papists which was amongst Pagans. They mean a sameness for some proportion that is between them. They affirm the same heresies are taught by them, as the ancient heretics broached, but mean a sameness for some likeness that is between them. They brand diverse of their superstitions, with the infamous mark of Turkism, because they come too near to Turkish superstion. And there be some Papists that in some things see no difference between their own Idolatry, and the superstion of the heathens, who yet in diverse petty differences, could not but find diversity.

#Sect. 19. The Opposites first difference, why our Cross not the same with the Papists sz. because not the same Numero.

WE have performed our first task and have proved the old pieces of the Cross to be too great, to admit a change sufficient. Take we now the second in hand, where we shall find his three new patches to be to little to endure it. The first difference (forsooth) in our new Cross is [Numerall.] It cannot be said to be the same with theirs (say some) because it is not the same in number. In which sort, if Papists may reason, they will easily prove against us that none of their rites are Jewish or Paganish. And if we may be suffered to use like reasoning, we are able to make clear, that the antiquity that is alleged for the Cross, is quite impertinent, our Cross not being the Fathers Cross, because Numero not the same. Our high Court of Parliament hath established no less then [three] Homilies against the use of all Images in the Church. What? speak they only against those Images which were [Numero] the same, that Papists had abused? speak they not against all Images like to theirs, although in number not the same?

Stephen the fifth, Pope of that name, consecrated to Idolatrous service no numeral Cross, but the sign of the Cross in general. If (then) the sheaf of the first fruits consecrated all the rest of the harvest, the consecration of the sign of the Cross in general hath much more hallowed to use Idolatrous (and so defiled) all numeral Crosses. All the meats that were brought to the table of Nebuchad-nezzar, were not offered to Bell, only one dish was set on his Altar for the rest, and this hallowed all the rest. Would Danieli eat upon our excuse, this meat [Numero] is not the same, which Bell hath defiled? But when the weak of the Primatiue Church did eat herbs for fear they should among other pieces of flesh light upon some which had [Numero] been sacrificed, they show that scrupulousity it self stuck only at that, which was abused indiuitually, and when the Christians (on the other side) that were at Antioch, ate of the meat that Julian had dedicated to his Idols in the shambles they show that a general consecration doth not defile particulars. As for the the first, the weak of the Christians that stuck at meat Idolothious, would have stuck much more at the holy use of the Idol, and at his habit in God's worship, which now is the blot that staineth Cross and Surplice. The latter instance putteth this distinction quite out of fashion For did they not at Antioch eat even of that meat which even Numero had been consecrate at the shambles? Its killeth not (then) whether it be [Numero] the same or no, that hath been consecrate, but the manner of consecrating and of eating is here the point which is all in all. Hath the Idolater consecrated specially with state in Idolatrous service, and doth the Christian use the thing so consecrate in God's holy service? Then caeteris paribus, the thing is unclean. Hath the Idolater consecrated generally only at the fountain or at the shambles without bestowing any special state religious in the worship of the Idols temple, and doth the Christian use the same in civil use? then may it be used as it was at Antioch, howbeit with some sighing; that which I thus apply to our purpose. Though Antioch meat was without state, our Cross and Surplice in state of Idolatrous service, though that was fetched from the shambes, our Cross sent us out of the Temple of the Idol though that was necessary our Cross needless; though that was a creature of God's in one civil use, our Cross a mere invention of man, out of one element in use religious: yet Christians partaked of that lugentes & gementes, being thereto by need constraind. Whereas our Opposites even ridentes & deridentes enforce a necessity of a Cross needless, to the general [gemitus] and to the luctus of Christian Churches.

#Sect. 20. Our second Opposite different why our Cross not the same with the Papists, sʐ. because ours is made at the fount only: theirs at the Church door also.

THe second difference between the popish Cross and ours may be termed circumstantial. It pleadeth our Cross is not the same, because made at the font only whereas Papists make it at the Church-door also: & ours is not daubde, with oil on the childes forehead, as their Cross was daubde, and is. First, accept of this difference and justify the popish ceremonies from being Jewish, since the same (if not greater) may be even alleged for them: as that the Jewish frankencense was a perfume, their simple frankencense without any ingredient else, and the Jews lights were of oil, whereas theirs be of wax. We use to deride such differences of theirs; and are bold to affirm that a sacrifice were now Jewish, although the matter totally differed; to wit, though a dog were offerred instead of the Jewish sheep. Secondly, there be as great differences as this in many Crosses, which never yet were held sufficient to vary any common case, that is incident unto the Cross. The Cross which Christians made with their arms, placed a twhart, when the Panthers were now ready to devour them: the Cross which the ancient communicants made with their hands, when being to receive the bread of the supper, they did subijcere sinistram, veluti sedem dextra, The Cross; which the Gentiles made with the thoumbe, put a twhart over the forefinger, which they kist in adoring the Sun, are cast into the heap with other Crosses; and brought by authors to prove the virtue, the use, and the holiness even of the Cross aerial which differeth from them, with greater [circumstance material] then our Cross from the Popish. What exception was ever taken either by the Burgonions against the French Cross; or by the French against the Burgonions, the one of which was asloope, the other atwhart? What difference was ever imagined between a Cross with five fingers, and a Cross with two? between a Cross from the right side to the left, and a Cross from the left side to the right? Wherein was it ever judged that the Stola cancellata in pectore, ad modum crucis, ad signan dum passionem Christi, that the Dalmatica which doth praferre crucis formam, to be an indicium passionis dominica, that the stretching forth of the Priests arms at mass to make a Cross to signify extentionē Christi in cruce; that the four red Crosses which are in the Bishops pall, to be a memoriace passionis redemptoris, did differ from the aerial Cross, or any Cross else material? Thirdly, make good these differences of former circumstances, between the popish Cross and ours, and then our Cross will not be the Fathers Cross, as it is boasted and given forth. For our Cross is after Baptism (men say) whereas the Cross of the ancient Fathers, was both before and after, the water even many times repeated. Before Baptism, the Cathechumeni were examined with interrogations and Cross, which also was done when they were exorcized. The oil (also) went before the consecrating of the font, which was done with a Cross, the consecrating of the font followed, and that was also done with a Cross. After these (some say) the Baptized was crossed in the forehead, though others seem to contradict it; who are of opinion the Presbyter signed in vertice only. Howsoever this be, after Baptism there was another annoyting used with diverse oil, by (a Bishop forsooth) who lastly crossed him on the forehead by the general consent of all. Fourthly, such differences of circumstance make no difference else where, and why then should they here? The Passover in Canaan had neither shoes on the feet, nor girdle about the loins, nor staff in the hand, as the Passover in Egypt had, and yet it was the very same Sacrament. Our Lord's supper is in the forenoon and with the leavened bread whereas Christ was after supper, with bread unleavened, yet the Sacraments be not diverse. Our Baptism (also) is one with the Fathers Baptism, though ours be in the day, their was at night, which had a special signification; as also their staying of the Baptized in the Church, or in the Baptistery until midnight.

#Sect. 21. The Opposites third difference of our Cross and theirs, is in the meaning, end and use.

THe third and last difference alleged for our Cross, to make it diverse from the popish, may in this sense be termed [formal] in that it is drawn from a diverse manner, in our meaning, end, and use. First, this justifieth both the Lutheran in his Images, and the Adiaphorist in all his mixtures, and meashings with popery; both of them protesting the rites they retain, are not popishly used by them, but [ad ornatum] only, and ad decorem, and ad adificationem. Yea, this justifieth the Papist (also) in all his Jewish, and heathenish ceremonies. Who, why should he not plead as well as we, I use them not as Pagans use them? Charles the great condemneth the Baptizing of Bels (to wit) the superstitious manner of Baptizing (saith Vitus Amerbachius ) not the Baptizing it self. The Council of Eliberis condemned lights at funerals (that is say the Papists) the manner of them ex superstitione gentilium, not the lights themselves. Our tapers (also) which burn on our Altars, are diverse from those of the heathens (say they) Wherefore? because Christiani, non eadem mente, co{que} fine, lumina offerunt. The Christians offer lights not with the same mind, not with the same end that Pagans do. Again, the Priests of the heathen used the stole, yet their stole is not heathenish, because the heathen did not use it, eadem ration, qua nunc Christiani. Secondly, the general plea of this excuse must needs be this, the Papists Cross to an ill end, we to a good. Which, is it good in an evil adulteress, such as the Cross is proved to be? then excuse Augustine too, excusing adultery, when it is committed to a good end, as to save an husbands life. Thirdly, we have Scriptures against this excuse, and we have the Fathers against it. Peter, used he not the Jewish rites diuersa mente, and yet is not excused? If we use the Cross for edification, and not as the Papists use it, so he used the Jewish meats for edification, and put no merit or necessity in them, as they of the Concision did. Augustine speaking of him, It is unlawful (saith he) to retain any of the Jews ceremonies (and Popish ceremonies, are worse then theirs) Quolibet affectu, & quouis animo id fiat; how diverse so ever our mind and meaning be. Fourthly, I appeal to our own writers, whereas Innocentius pleadeth, their oil is not Jewish, because it signifieth diuerslie, they refute him, because a diverse manner maketh no lawful diversity, and because it is not lawful to borrow form Jews, (therefore not from Papists) and addere nouam significationem. Martial maketh a difference between the heathens incense and theirs, because they use it better. Doctor Fulke disdaineth the difference, and scorneth to answer it, it is so foolish. Bonner holdeth their Images diverse from the Pagan Images, because used by them to better ende; Master Hawkes careth not for the diverse use, as long as both laid together, have eyes and see not, ears and hear not, and so agree in common properties the one with the other, he counteth them all one. Finally, this change of a popish rite, upon pretence of a diverse use, is but a transplantation only, which out of the Scriptures all our writers do condemn; affirming that it is our duty, to grubbe them clean out of the Church. Fifthly (and last of all) I appeal to our own practice, whereas some Churches retain the elevation still, not for adoration like the Papists, but for ostension to the people, as if this difference of diverse manner, bore no meat in mouth, we have abolished it. Whereas some allow of a stone Altar so it be erected for a Sacrament, not for a Sacrifice, as if this diversity of use and end were insufficient, we have removed them like to other reformed Churches. Whereas Lutherans retain Images in the Church for use historical as if this diverse end were nothing, we have turned them headlong out of our Churches. We might use in diverse manner the popish Crosses of the supper, as well as their Cross in Baptism; them we cashire under this general and peremptory doom, papisticorum gestuum licentia, prorsus tollenda. And is not the Cross in Baptism a popish gesture, as well as that of the Lord's Supper?

#Sect. 22. Our use of the Cross, the same with the Papist in senen respects. The Opposites distinction of effective and significative in defense of it answered.

WE have proved a diverse manner in using of the Cross, is no sufficient change. Now what if our manner be not diverse, but in a manner the very same? For do we use the sign of the Cross, not as a substantial part of Baptism, but as a ceremony for order, decency, and edification? even so do they. Do we use it as an ancient rite, that bringeth reuerentiam Sacramento? even so do they. Do we set it in the forehead, the seat of shame to profess Christ crucified? even so do they. Do we use it for a sign to stir to patience, to fight under Christ his banner? even so do they. Do we use it to dedicate our selves and our children unto God? even so do they. Do we use it for a thankful memorial, to call to mind our redemption by Christ Jesus? even so do they. Do we use it to confirm our faith in the same redemption, or to put our selves in mind of the forgiveness of our sins? even so do they. But whereas they use it effective, we use it only significative. Hui? And is all come to this? Is it possible so great a cry, should yield so little wool? For first the Adiaphorist (whom we were wont to call a Sattanist) useth the very same distinction, he will have his candles and Images, to be signifying memorials only, without all such effective power, as papists give to thē. Yea, Cassander himself (the very Godfather of Adiaphorism) will have Images retained only upon this condition, vt rerum gestarum, &c. That they be accounted monuments of things done, not instruments, and that no power or virtue be ascribed unto them. We all cry out upon Paulinus, for first bringing Crosses, and other pictures into the Churches; which, were they other then significative? Guesse by his Cross begirt with a crown, two doves standing on the top, which, what was it else but a mere Emblem? which the Poet thus expoundeth.

There be Papists that tolerate Images only for their signification and as they are recordatiue. In the Canon of the Mass, the Crosses were made, Ad comemorandam veritatem crucis, & passionis Christi. Quid enim est (vt ait Iuo Carnotencis) inter mysteria rebus sacratis vel sacrandis signum crucis super ponere, quam mortem domini commemorare? Read others, and you shall find the Crosses of the Lord's Supper to be significative alone, which have we not for all this abolished? therein destroying this significative excuse, which now we go about to build? Secondly, we have condemned all interpretations in all rites popish, by one of our writers thus: Nullus fingat sibi commodas in spetiem interpretationes, &c. Let no man forge interpretations to himself, though never so glorious in show, by them to persuade himself, he may lawfully observe any papal traditions, without the hurt of his own conscience. Now this excuse of ours for the Cross, is not an interpretation only, but to speak with Saint Augustine, even interpraetatio simulachrorum. The Pagan of his time, thought he was purgatioris religions, in that he held his Image to be a sign of his God only, even so think we our Cross purgatior, because we make him not a God as Papists do, but only a sign and a monument of him? When Innocentius maketh this difference between the Jewish oil and his own, that the former was significative only, his effective; doth this excuse it from being Jewish in the eyes of our writers? The school Sophisters maketh the Cross of Baptism and other complements to differ in [efficacy] from the water in Baptism, and therefore they coin a distinction between them, that the one is Sacramentum, the other Sacramentalia only. This distinction savoreth ill before our writers▪ one calleth it sophistical, because it is not sumpta ex re, these ceremonies, being outward signs as well as the water, and that of the same things a diverse conceit of a power effective, is but vain to make sound difference, it being in cogitation only. Thirdly, this interpretatiue excuse, is inward we know being able to plead no further then the Nicholaitan once, though I use the Idols meat yet is mine heart free from all Idolatry & superstition. What though we should grant, that the effective power of the Cross, being abolished, his body, flesh, and bones were gone? are we commanded to avoid the Idol himself, or his service only? are we not bound to refrain even ab effigie also, from his shape, and from the superficies of him? that is his skin: Yea from his very upper garment? at a word, from all show and from all spice of popery? Two Christians throw incense into the fire before Julian, not with the same meaning that others did. A soldier weareth a garland in the days of Tertullian with a mind free from the Idolatry of his fellows. Joseph useth the same oath that Idolaters do, when they ascribe a certain kind of immortality unto Pharo, how be it his mind is diverse from theirs. This difference is nothing worth, as long as the incense, the garland, the oath is the same (as we now use the same sign with the Papists) there is a partaking with Idolaters by show and in appearance. But we remedy this show, in that we make our meaning known to use it only as a sign. As if Hezekiah had not wit to think on this? whereas the inward Idolatry to the brazen serpent ascribeth to it an effective power of healing, I will let him alone, and make known to the people, he is kept only (as Moses appointed) for a signifier & memorial of so much. This protesting against the outward show we give, is (indeed) no other but that which once deceived great Origen. For thus he, venite accipite frondes Christi, non iam frondes simulachri: For so we call men to the Protestants cross as if it were now the popish cross no longer. Remember the fondness of Marcellinus, Non dijs sacrificaui, sed tantū graua thuris, leuatis manibus, superprunas combus • i. I did not sacrifice, I only took a little frankensence and did burn the same upon the wales. What more ridiculous? and yet it as good (well near) as this excuse which we do make, we make no popish Cross at all, we only wag our fingers a little, and draw two lines a cross. Fourthly, this [interpretatiue] difference which is [inward] consisteth only in a lower estimation of the heart, we ascribe not the same power to the Cross that Papists do, this is all; which is the very ground they stand on, that worship the Cross both by East and by West, we perform the same outward reverence to our Images, that the Pagans do to theirs, but here is the difference (say they) we do it 〈◊〉 • o • only without ascribing any power divine unto them. Fifthly, our communion book must be gently handled, or else our sign of the Cross is effective. For we sign the child in token, that he shall continue Christ's faithful soldier to his lives end: these words [shall continue] to his lives end, compared with the like in the Epistle of the 22. Sunday after Trinity [God shall continue the work in you to the end] show unto us, that we use the cross for a pleadg to give assurance to the child to continue in grace unto the end, which if it be so, then he serveth to work faith, and is used effectiuely. And who can conceive that the book giveth less power to the sign of the Cross, then to the sign of imposing hands? which that it is effectiuely used, it is out of question, for it is ministered to the baptized, [ that he may receive strength agains sin, and against temptation. ] So hitherto, it hath been proved, that neither the Cross may be changed to use religious; neither is changed sufficiently by us. Now, what if it might and were? for we plead.

#Sect. 23. Evils occasioned by the Cross in regard of the Cross it self, people, Minister and Governors that urge it.

THirdly, we are not to consider so much whether the Cross it self be changed, as whether the events of the Cross be changed or no, which we find are not, much evil still flowing from it by the fault of the Cross it self, by the fault of the people; by the fault of the minister that doth make it, and last of all by the fault of our governors, that do enforce it. It is the Cross fault that it is too like a Popish Idol. For similitudo is even to the wisest men, the mother of error. What (then) shall become of a vulgar company who have even a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in them of inconstancy they do so lean to superstition? And it is the Crosses fault that he draweth too near to the popish Idolatry. For let all the former excuses speak what they can, they can say no more then this, We march on with the Papists a good way, but we go not so far as they; and we agree in many uses with them, but one of their uses (to wit) their [effectiuenes] we forbear. Which what is it for us, who are forbidden not only to plunge our selves so deep as Idolaters do, but also to touch any of their unclean things, or (indeed) to come near the least imitation of them? Might not the virgins of Cyprians time plead the fame. Indeed we go far (we grant) in the way of fornication we walk with young men; we talk with them; yea, we go to bed to them. But when it cometh to the act, then we forbear, & therefore are guiltless. For that we talk with the harlot the Cross, it is apparent by the conference which we have with her about Christ Jesus, which she representeth, more apparent is it that we walk with her who hath chosen her for our teacher and our guid, most of all apparent is it, that we go to bed to her, for we use her in the Church, which is known to be the bed both of chaste & unchaste worship. What (then) though we use her not effectiuely? This is but to forbear when it cometh to the adulterous act, like Cyprians virgin, so that there is liable against us now, what then she heard. Non est locus dandus Diabolo, nemo diu tutus periculo proximus, graves multorum ruina inde sequantur. Come we to the people in the second place. It was the desire of Ludouicus Viues and Gerson before him, that the Images might be removed, because the people finding them in outward appearance like the Idols of the Pagans, they would eftsoons worship them in the same manner. If we seek the like removal of the Cross, we have like cause; the people being as prone (now) to doth o • the fame in popish manner, as long as they see it before their eyes, after their old popish fashion. I say after their old fashion, because populus non nouit distinguers (as one saith our of Arist •• le ) especially in so quaint a difference, as this of [effectiuenes] or in such a ceremony as the Cross, which they have so long abused as one of our writers well, populus, &c. the people either understandeth not, or considered not the right use of those ceremonies, which they have so long abused, as also their for fathers before them. To come nearer home: M. Bucer will not have the cross in Baptism, unless he be both purely understood, & religiously received by the people. Which condition finding no place in the people to this hour, what reason to put him to any longer trial. In regard hereof lay we to heart, even what a Jesuit speaketh. The changes of a Sacrament (saith he) must be regarded, not as they are Mathematical, but as they are moral; not according to the problemes of the learned, but according to the opinion and the practice of the people. So that the Mathematical change, which our law is said to have made in the Cross, is not material, alwhile the moral estimation and use of him in the people, is the same. The change of Haedera instead of Cucurbita in the translation of Jonah, was mathematically little, yet morally it was very great, because the people took head against it, and made great a do about it. On the other side, the change of the ancient Churches Leiturgie in the days of Nicholas, was mathematically great, because it brought in perfection of the mass: but morally it was nothing at all, because few or none observed it, neither were the people grieved at it. I come in the third place to the Minister that maketh the Cross, he saith, I make it not [effective,] the Image maker said the like. I make the Image, not for any favor to the worshipping of it, but to follow my trade and calling. But if he did Colere, because he fashioned it, vt coli possit, then he that fashioneth a Cross in use religious, vt ad superstitionem conuerti possit, incurreth himself the blame of superstition. Ex hoc quod vetor facere curandum est ne fiat per me. Again, the school-master, who in the days of Tertullian, read the stories of heathenish God's unto his scholars, did not in intent approve them, yet because he refrained not from occasion of approbation in other men, dum docet commendat, dum tradit affirmat. And doth not (then) a Minister much more commend the honor of the Idol, when he maketh it? and affirmeth it when he fashioneth it in honorable manner, and in the reverent service and Sacrament of the Lord? he cannot say, I make no such Cross as Papists do. What if he could? Nobis satis non est si ipsi nihil tale faciamus, nisi & talia facientibus non conferamur? I come in the fourth place to our governors, who lay (in vain) the fault upon the people's abuse, that our Cross is not morally changed from the popish, but hatcheth the same effects amongst us. For God will ask them, why do you keep it in your Churches to be abused? Nulla distantia est abutendi cum cessat veritas vtendi. The people could not abuse the Cross, if it were not used at all, Nulli abuti apud Apostolum licet facilius non vti docentem. We hold Tullus Hostilius unwise for adventuring on Jupiter Elicius, since the least swerving A formula, would burn him, & his house to powder; which also fell out. So (me thinks) it is unwise to adventure on the Cross, our distinction of [effectiuenes] is a nice point, and such as bringeth to the brink of danger; and let the people swerve never so little from the [formula] of it, and they are in the pit. As for teaching them to the contrary (alas) what is it? For if the sight of an Idols ears and eyes, persuadeth them more, that he seeth and heareth, then their hearing to the contrary that he heareth not, that he seeth not: then much more will their eyes prevail to persuade them that there is an effective Cross amongst us, (the very same that was of old in time of popery) then their ears when they hear from us it is not such, which they do not consider. I would (therefore) we could follow the warynes of Rome herself in a matter of like danger. Why may not a written piece of Scripture with a Cross be bore in the bosom with this caveat, modo ne ex superstitione, modo ne spes habeatur, in modo scribendi, that is, so it be not used effectiuely? She considereth it is dangerous to bring her children so near the brink of effective hope; therefore she concludeth, though a man may lawfully bear these in his bosom, yet it is, tutius & laudabilius, ab his abstinere. So though it were lawful to use a Cross, with a proviso against the effective use thereof, yet were it tutius to abandon it quite, to aquit all danger.

#Sect. 24. Five defences of the Cross objected by the Opposites: The first whereof is answered in this Section, and that which followeth.

WE have stricken through the loins of them, who deny the sign of the Cross to be so much as an Idol amongst us through participation, upon pretence, that it is not the same with the popish, but that it is changed sufficiently with us. Now make we a stand against them, who plead five things, against the sentence of abolition, for this gross Idol pretenciuely changed. First, the commandment which Moses gave touching the abolishing of all monuments of Canaan's Idolaty, bindeth not (say they.) It was a temporal exercise for the Jews only, and other Pagans were not devoted to destruction as they were, and popery is not so bad as Paganism; and therefore there is not required of us the like severity in the abolishing of her relics. First, let them remember themselves do hold, that Moses Law concerning Tithes is perpetual, even according to the letter, by which tithes are [de iure diuino] in their opinion. A strange thing they should strain the very letter it self of Tithes, but clean pass by the main equity of this law, that abolisheth aliene rites; seeing Bellarmine himself doth see (that which the Apostle plainly showeth) that a sufficient maintenance only of the minister is to be enforced hence, and more then this we go not about to wring out of this Law; we crave only an equity of it, to wit, such an abolishing of Idolotrous relics, as may be sufficient for God's glory, for the edifying of his people, and for the preserving of religion in holy pureness. But Master Calvin himself confesseth the letter of it was an exercise that was temporal to the Jews; which we willingly grant, so that our Opposites will allow us that everlasting equity of it, which he auerreth: Fateor (saith he) quaecun{que} ad superstitionem fouendam spectant, e medio tollenda esse. Again, Summa huc tendit, quo melius pateat, quantopere detestatur Deus Idololatriam, velle eorum omnium memoriam aboleri, quae semel dicata sunt Idololis. I ask how the Idols themselves may remain in honorable use, (such as Cross and Surplice are) when the very memory it self, must be razed of everything, that heretofore hath been consecrate to their service? Loe the equity of this Law? behold the equivalent, to which this equity bindeth forever? even as the causes are perpetual, whereon it is grounded (to wit) the jealousy of the Lord, against each remnant of Idolatry, the Churches duty to abhor it forever; the ensnaring of the Idol and of his monument, the danger of abuse in his people with the rest that have been heretofore rehearst. Secondly, though the Canaanites were more devoted to destruction, for their persons then other Pagans, yet the Idolotries of other Pagans, were as much as theirs devoted to abolition, both before them, from the beginning, and in time after them euersince▪ Before them, Jacob doth aware, not only the Images, but also the earings of his wives Idols, and that by the law of nature, that was written in his heart. After this law of Moses, (made against the Canaanites) we see it continued against the Idolatries of other Pagans, whose Images, whose ornaments, whose very name, whose Idolothites; whose unclean things, whose very garment, and each appurtenance, must be cleansed and cast away. They were the Jews not the Canaanites, that committed Idolatry to the brazen serpent, which Hezekiah did abolish, though by Moses himself preserved, to be a figure of Christ crucified▪ of which honor the Cross cometh short; yea his very figure it self, (to wit) the post whereon the brazen serpent hanged. But Hezekiah was not bound to break the serpent (say our Opposites) he might have chosen (as every Christian Prince may now) in the Idols of the Papists. But the text is clean to the contrary: Hezekiah did this according to the Law of Moses, and the interpreters of the text are to the contrary. Quidquid fecit Hezech. fecit ex lege, and some Papist (also) are to the contrary, what needeth more? Our Opposites themselves are to the contrary; who rehearse this fact of Hezechia not only among things well done, but also amongst things which God required to be done. And when Gratian meateth the same measure to them, The Pope might have chosen whether he would have submitted himself to the Emperor or no (which they meat to us.) Hezekiah might have chosen whether he would have brokē the serpent or no, they can tell how to detect the shift with that reply which we must now return home to them. It is a very short & an easy method, to be rid of all examples and histories, to say they did so, but it was more then needed to be done. Let them satisfy me in two things, would God have commended it, if he had not commanded it? or can anything be well done, that is not commanded to be done? Say the former, and bring in traditions, grant the latter, & grant works of supererogation. To make short work, the example of Joshua destroying the monuments of the Canaanites, and of Hezekiah breaking down the brazen serpent, bind forever, to the razing of all Idols, their rites and monuments, to the end of the world, in the eyes of all good writers.

Sect. 25. THirdly, there is no Idolatry Canaanitish, Paganish, Jewish, or what else soever, against which the equity of this law, is more liable, then against the Idolatry popish, so far is it, that her relics may be better spared then theirs. For what is there written literally against Paganish Idolatry in the old Testament, which is not Anagogically applied by the Fathers against the heresies of the new, of which (we know) the popish is the greatest? Nay it is the common divinity of all ages, that heresy in pretended Christians, is far worse then any Idolatry of open Pagans. As for the heresy of moderne popery in particular, we find it described through the Scripture, as the quintessense of all paganism, so that the second beast of Rome ouertopt by the Papacie, that rideth on it, is araigned and found guilty of more whoredom and blasphemy, more spiritual drunkenness and tyranny finally of more abomination, then the first of Rome. Paganish when the papacy did not rule it. And because we are in a comparison of the old Idolatry of the Canaanites and other Pagans that were before the coming of Christ: as Rome for her Empire quartereth her Schutchion with the Lyon of Assyria, the Bear of Persia, the Leopard of Macedonia, and with the uncouth ten horned beast of Syria and Egypt, as if all the wickedness of all the enemies of the Church were to the full transfused into her; so for her papacy she is styled Sodom, Egypt, Babylon, with the like, as if she were (as indeed she is) the very Sea that receiveth into her channel all the filthiness of all Pagans that were before. Neither is there Canaanite, Moabite, Philistine, or any other, to whom the Papists are not equal. For it is to these Gentiles and heathenish nations, to which the spirit doth allude when he calleth Papists by the name of Gentiles & heathen men; that tread down with their feet the out court of the Temple, that compass about the tents of the Saints. Finally that fight against Christ's Church, for which he smiteth them with the sword of his mouth, and breaketh them with his iron scepter. And as the Papists are in equipage with former Pagans so likewise with all moderne aliens, the Turk himself being not excepted who is loosed from the East to punish them, and is not half so much aimed at in the book of God's Counsels (which the Lamb hath unsealed to John ) as they are aimed at. No merucile, Plus metueudus & cauendus est inimicus (saith Cyprian ) cum latenter obrepit, ea est Diaboli astucia, vt sub ipso Christiani nominis, titulo, fallat in cautos. It is the Pope that is the Antichrist, even by our own confession. It is the Pope that is the adversary of God. He is also the Apolluon the destroyer. Yea the dragon tongued beast, The man of sin, the child of perdition; the whore of Babel, the mother of fornication and of all abomination through the earth. This considered, what meaneth our torpor? what our frozen coldness in zeal? we may not (forsooth) be so forward against the Papist, as the godly have been before us against the Pagans. Oh speech unworthy, because making our selves unworthy to be in the number of those faithful and blessed instruments, who shall be called by the Lord, to be the men that shall burn the very flesh it self of the harlot with fire; that so no footstep, no remnant, no relique of her may remain. Go ye Angels and blessed spirits, and (without us) throw ye Babel like of stone into the bottom of the sea. Go ye fowls of the air, and ye beasts of the field, and (without us) devour and swallow the flesh of her soldiers, and leave not so much as a Jezebels skull behind. Go ye Heavens Apostles, Prophets, and ye the Saints of the living God, and (without us) rejoice in her ruin. Yea, Go ye warryers faithful and chosen, and (without us) fight under your glorious Captain against her, and make your swords drunken with the blood of her slain. While you are laboring, that never candell shine in her again, we must nourish her sparcles least her light be quite extinguished. While you cleanse and rince your garments from her pollution, and put on linen pure & white, to war against her, we must buy of her Marchandize, and of the linen which she selleth to the nations, while you like Samson's stir yourselves, and shout against the beast of Rome, (as against the greatest enemy, that ever our good Jesus had upon the earth) we must let our weapons down, and hang down our hands, and cool our zeal. Yea sound for Parle, and think upon conditions of peace. More then this, we must even turn our weapons against our own brethren (who are our own bowels) as if they were worse then Papists, and in favor of Christ's enemies, become enemies unto the faithful soldiers of Christ; we must take the crowns of our Martyrs and surrender them to Parsons, as if they were not as blessed now, who die in these days against Rome Popish, as they who died in older time against Rome Paganish. We must repeal our Act of Parliament, which findeth Paganisime it self in popery; we must yield, and give up the very ancients of our army, & break their golden pens in pieces, who have taught that the Images of God in popery are as vile Idols, as the Images of the Pagans were; and that their worshipping in the papacy is as abhominable, as the Pagan adoration. But what is the worst that can be said of Turks and Pagans? I trow this, that they served devils. And is not Rome an habitation, and cage of devils? The factors of Rome, the spirits of devils? The Idols of Rome, even devils themselves? This bringeth us home to the Cross & Surplice which being Idols of theirs, are no otherwise to be thought of, thē we think of the devil himself. When the Corinthian thought it a thing indifferent to eat of the Idolothite, what (saith Paul ) call you that indifferent, which maketh you partake with devils? The same may be said of the Cross and Surplice, not only by virtue of the former text, which calleth them devils (as they are used in popery:) but also by our writers verdict, who give good reason the devil is worshipped in popish Idols as well as in Paganish. As for the Cross, doth not Ambrose directly say, the adoring of it is a paganish error? I conclude with one of our writers. Cum paromnino cultus ratio vtrius{que} gentis sit, consequence est omnia quae contra deos & Idola gentium, pronuntiata sunt, à sanctis etiam contra nostros diuos, corum{que} imagines esse pronuntiata, & Idololatriam hanc, nobis non minus persequendam esse, quam sui saeculi Idololatriam, maiores nostri persecuti sunt.

#Sect. 26. Objections of the Opposits for the Cross confuted in this Sect. and 27. following. Ceremonies honorable in their ancient beginning must be corrected, not removed.

THe first defense which maintaineth the Cross and Surplice in possession, pleadeth as we see, the abusers of it must be spared. The second followeth; and it saith, the first vsers of it are to be honored, and for their sakes they must not be abandoned by us, but restored to their first use. The member curable must be healed, not cut off. It is sufficient to sheere the ceremonies of the Papists, though we do not flea them. The ceremonies which may be used well, may not be cancelled, if it be but for their antiquity, which purchaseth to them sufficient authority; yea in things that are abused, the abuse only must be removed, the things themselves must still remain. First be it considered, that the Papists plead the same for their Baal, the Lutherans for their Images, the Adiaphorists for their mixtures; as Cassander by name, pleadeth the same, for his hodgepodge in Germany. Baldwin the same, for his gallimawfry among the French. Orichouius the same for his medley in Polonia. Nay more, we may here repeat that of Tertullian: Quid aliter dixisset Ethnicus? I mean, what can the Papist say more, for all the pack of his ceremonies, then what he speaketh in this our language? Praeterquam quod decorem sacramentis afferunt. & reuerentiam quandam conciliant, singulari quo{que} antiquitatis commendatione nobis sunt venerande. Secondly, the sign of the Cross, had never any ancient use that was laudable, to speak the best it was but tolerable; to speak the least it was superfluous, to speak the worst it was superstitious and near Montanicall. Such a mere tare it was sowed by the enemy in the Lord's field; yea nothing better then hay and stubble, built unadvisedly upon Christ. I omit that in ceremonies, non tam origo, spectanda est, quam vt consentiant cum verbo dei, but if our Opposites must needs drink of his cesterne of antiquity, then let the oil it self of Baptisine, be revived: yea, Baptizing by lay men, for these be as ancient as the Cross, and sprange about the same time with it. Sure with far better reason may they be raked out of their graves, the ceremony of [kissing] the infant Baptized: the ceremony of the ringe; given in Baptism, for an obsignation of faith and profession: the ceremony of putting milk and honey into his mouth: and lastly the ceremony of the white garment wherewith the Baptized was wont to be clothed. These being equal to the Cross, both for antiquity, and for profitiblenesse of signification, and surmounting it in other respects, as that they were never so much abused as the Cross hath been, not now import so much peril, as the Cross bringeth with it, may give wise men cause to wonder why these should be buried in a Toumbe sealed up, while the Cross not only liveth, but also dominiereth. But if the Cross must needs be renewed above his fellows (though far better then himself) then renew we the use effective, and operative of it: renew we also the necessity of his use, for such was his use at first, as shall be shown hereafter. Yea (then) take we up the crossing of our selves too, in all our business; Yea the crossing of our bedds, and other things which are without life▪ It may be (also 〈◊〉 we must take up the very material Crosses and all. For so some guess out of Tertullian, who giveth instance in wooden statutes of the heathens, which were like to those Crosses among Christians which they so much misliked.

THirdly, what if the Cross had in old time an indifferent use (for good I am forbidden to term it) is not the contradictio calumniosa, quae de bonis praescribit vt asserat mala? For the abuse of it hath since been such, as that now it is the Fathers Cross no longer. What one porro quod quidam dicunt, &c. They say nothing for excuse, who say they restore those ceremonies, which because they have been used by the Fathers, therefore penitus do not appertain to Antichrist? For after that things have served Idolatry, they are Idolatrous, and they please not God; but God would have them to be castaway. The brazen serpent was ordained by God; and that by Moses (so great a Prophet) yet after it had served Idolatry, it was no longer the serpent of God but the serpent of Idolaters, and the serpent of the devil. And praised is Hezekiah who brake him in pieces, therefore although these popish ceremonies were extant in the Church, even from the days of the first Fathers, yet notwithstanding seeing they are (and have been for so long a time) defiled penitus with Idolatry and abuse papistical, they are no longer the Fathers ceremonies, but the ceremonies of Antichrist, and they are piously abolished, but impiously and against God's will restored again. How many of other writers subscribe to this? Gideon did set up an Ephod to the same end, that Constantine did erect the Cross, to wit, for a thankful monument that his victory came from God but when it once became an Idol, was it any longer his? or his intent and zeal this way, did it any way excuse the suffering of it when once the people stumbled at it? The Ephesians set up an Ox by Joseph's toumbe, for a thankful monument of their preservation by him, and by his husbandry. This intent at first was good, after it grew to be adored in Egypt. After this abuse, was it Joseph's ox any longer? or was it for his sake to be spared, and so restored to his first use? ask the Council of Rome herself and be ashamed. Adrian the fourth, when the papacy is degenerate, he saith it is the papacy of Peter no longer, but the papacy of Romulus rather. Polydor Virgil counteth sanctuaries abused, not the sanctuaries of Moses, but of Romulus. Pius secundus calleth the Mendicants, the Monks of the devil, when they are degenerated from the ancients. Paulus Thaebeus, Antonius Hilarion with the rest. Polydor Virgil counteth not the Monks of his time degenerated, the Monks of Benedict, Augustine, Jerome, quine call quid vnquam cogitarunt futurum, not to be tedious. Johannes Molanus reckoneth the fasts of his time degenerated, to be none of the ancient fasts any longer. Si ad veterem disciplinam at{que} rigorem respiciamus, vix vllus hoe tempore ieiunare censebitur. We our selves count not the tapers of the Papists (abused) although abused only to signification and no operation, to be any of the ancient lights which were used in the East, and their holy bread now abused to operation, to be none of the hallowed bread used of old for a sign of friendship only. As for the Cross, which hath received all the abuses which can be named of operation, adoration, &c. there may be better said of it, then of any other relique; of any Idolatry whatsoever, what one of our writers hath, sicue faris aut scorti, ipsimaetiam vestem, &c. as we detest the very garment it self of a these, and of an whore, though it be innocent; and there is no honest man that willingly doth so much as touch it so they that be truly pious from the heart, do abhor these Popish tristes, because in the papacy they have been put to extreme abuse, and to impiety, and have been therewith defiled. Necest tantum delicati 〈◊〉 s • l • m palati istud f • sti dium. But indeed it is the Holy Ghost himself that doth seriously detest these ceremonies that are polluted with abominations. But whether the Cross may be called the ancient Fathers Cross or no, sure it is the pretence of restoring it to the ancient Fathers use, will not be received, neither will it serve to save it from the executioners hands. Might not Hezekiah have restored the serpent to the ancient use which it had in David's time, by setting it besides the Rodde and the Manna, and other monuments? or by hiding it behind the Ark where David laid Go • iahes sword? but he knew a thing so abused, was to be broken and not restored. Neither hath the Church since him thought any course fit to be taken with the relics of Idolatry, thē the same which he did take which is penitus amputare, even wholly and altogether, without that sparing which adviseth to sheere only, and not to flea the popish ceremonies, and to spare them from abscision, in hope they may be cured. And not only against the relics of Idolatry hath the Church shown this severity, but we shall find things more profitable, have been abolished and removed from time to time, and that for less abuse. Feasts of charity at communions were more ancient then the Cross, and more profitable to nourish love, yet when they grew once to abuse, we see them cashiered, as by the Apostle so by diverse Councils following. The confession before the communion how little was it abused, yet when abuse grew out of it, although but once, Nectarius with other Bishops, thought it meet to be abolished. The night Vigills of men and women, when abused had more color of defense then our Cross can have now. Jerome might plead for their abuse, paucorum culpa non praeiudicat religioni, qui & abs{que} vigilijs possunt errare, vel in suis, vel in alienis domibus. We come short of Jerome even in this excuse of his; it being by the Cross that very many be ensnared and he containing no holy exercise of religion, which may be prejudiced by his abolition: and yet we find these forenamed Vigills, not only misliked, but also surceased. Last of all, the sanctuaries are ancient, which nevertheless because abused, are now long since misliked, condemned, and in France and other places totally abrogated. Let the Cross be judged by the Canon law and his privilege of antiquity, for late abuse will be taken away. For the doom is just, Priuilegium meretur amittere, qui permissa abutitur potestate.

#Sect. 28. The abuse of the Cross cannot be removed the Cross it self remaining.

FOurthly, this defense implieth, that the abuse of the Cross may be removed, the Cross itself remaining: which is both against that general rule, Certum est Idolomaniam, qualiter nunc illa fascinatae sunt hominum mentes, non aliter quam subducta insaniendi materia curari posse. And also that particular tenent of our writers which one hath, It is as impossible to cure the abuses of the Cross (the Cross it self remaining) as it is to quench the flame all while the wood and fuel lasteth. Indeed a poisonful rust hath so deeply eaten into it, as that it can no more be cured then those other abused ceremonies, of which our own communion book, their superstition cannot be taken away; the ceremonies themselves remaining. The experience of forty years hath proved this true, even as the experience of two hundred hath proved that true in the popish Church, which was foretold to the Council of Constance, to wit, that the abuse of Images could not be remedied but by an abolition of them: hereof there be many reasons: The Idol is a tempting harlot, the Cross in particular a very ring-worm that spreadeth mightily. Men by nature (the men of England by custom also) are most prone to superstition, the devil is present with the Idol to insinuate bad suggestions, which are much furthered by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the same and by the honorable sublimity of it which the Cross obtaineth in Baptism, it being a place of chief advancement in God's service. What that the common multitude doth reverence it there, which is an especial motive, and the authority of the magistrate, doth there countenance, yea command it, nay more revenge the quarrel of it, upon the grave and reverend preachers of the Gospel, which, striketh it a little stroke with the simple and vulgar man? Last of all (which is most of all) God doth in justice curse their course, who upon any pretence retain any Idol or any monument of Idolatry, making it a snare, to all that will needs try their strength upon it, against his word. This hath he done in the use of this sign, even from the beginning, it being scarce out of the cradle, when it became a fertile mother of much superstition. Which curse will now be doubled on us) according to our just deserving) if we presume to harden our selves against this tried experience past, and against the former punishment, or if we shall be bold to adventure upon like danger in an age more corrupt, amiddst a people more infected, and on a ceremony more abused in latter times, then heretofore it hath been. Against these vollies of deadly shot, what one Bulwark, what one Blockehouse will suffice? It will be replied that the people may be taught against these abuses, which if it be done (as their is liberty given to do it) there is no peril to be feared. First, this voice cometh even out of the Dragons mouth; Si quid periculi ex imaginibus dei potest accidere, assidua doctrina pastorum, & tradition parentan • auferri debet. Yea, this police if I term it the very seed of all Idolatry, I do it no wrong; as they easily will assent that do but weigh and well consider the rising and the growth thereof. For when it began to blossom first among Christians lately converted from their paganism, at what time they were desirous to have Crosses and other Images in room of their heathenish Idols, in which honor the vnwary pillars of the Church then living, did to much favor them: if then the rule had been observed, Let no root of any bitterness be found among you, They had happily at the first crushed and bruised this serpents head. Whereas following the tract of this carnal policy of keeping Images and Crosses to please the people, upon an hope a preaching against their adoration would clear all danger, they gave them scope (before they perceived it,) not only to moare but also to spread, and finally to gain that height in which at this day we find them. And who was the Father of this policy, but that Gregory. from whom (as from a Troian horse) many other superstions issued forth. For when Serenus Bishop of Marsellis in the spirit of Hezekiah brake down the Images and the Cross of his Diocese, because he saw they were Idolatrously abused. This Gregory wrote an Epistle to him tart and sharp. Wherein, after he had reproved him of much rashness and indiscretion, he giveth him direction to call the people of his Diocese before him, and so reach them out of the Scripture that their worship was unlawful, but as for the Images and Crosses themselves, to let them stand untouched. And this was the prima labes about the year 600. After in the 700. age, Crosses and Images go down in the East; especially after the seventh Counsel at Constantinople had decreed the abolishing of them. Which being crossed by the second of Nice, the Emperor Charles called a Council at Frankford (which walking in the midway between them both) decreed that Crosses and Images should stand against the Council of Constantinople, but that they should not be worshipped against the second of Nice. And this policy and course continued in the West (in France especially) for a long season, as these words of Strabo show; Non ideo, quia nouimus non adorandas, ideo conculonadae & delenda pictura. Now I need not be long to show to how little effect this policy sorted: the fact of Claudius Taurinensis bewrayeth sufficiently the Idolatry which it brought forth; who upon the same occasion that moved Serenus of Marseillis before, brake the Law to break down Crosses, and other Images, because he saw the abuse of them so increased as could no longer by any preaching be redressed. And for this fact he was never troubled. Yea, whereas he wrote an Apology for himself, Ludouicus the king received it graciously; and gave it to Jonah Bishop of Orleans to survey it. To suffer the sign of the Cross (then) and to have the abuse of it preached against, is to imitate among the Bishops of Rome malorum Primum; among the Emperors that are revived from not [being] through the Lombards desolation, and the Goths the bestiam primam which the spirit hath foreshowed: whereas our writers call us to an imitation of Claudius (rather) in consideration that for the raising of superstition, no means are left, as long as the Bishops think they do service sufficient, if they preach against the worshipping of images. Secondly, the presidents which we have to keep the Cross, and preach against the abuses of it, are not so unworthy of imitation but the presidents which we have to the contrary, are as necessary to be followed. Joshua did not bid the Priests to preach against the Idols of Canaan, but with his hands he threw them down. And Hezekiah willed not the Levites to preach against the serpents abuse, but he brake it all to pieces, and shown it all the disgrace he could. Our Lord, not only preached against the Oxen and Doves sold in the Temple, but also (as the king of the Church) he cast them forth. Epiphanius took no course with the Pastor of Anablatha, or with John Patriarch of Jerusalem, to have the image of Christ (hanging in the Church) to be preached against, but he reproved them for suffering it there, and pulled it down himself. The Council of Eliberis, and the fifth of Carthage (where Augustine himself was president) and the Council of Mainz, leave not a relique nor a remnant of Idolatry in the Church, upon a color of preaching against the abuses of them, but they remove and abolish them all, or sue to the magistrate for their abolition. Constantine the great would not suffer the least rag of Pagan Idolatry to remain to be preached against, but razed out all memorials of it; as which he acknowledged to be lapidem offensacula ante pedes proiecta. Theodosius was more earnest: who not only overthrew funditus, but also obliuioni dedit, those few ceremonies which had escaped the hands of Constantine; or which Julian had repaired. The same together with Valentinian, took out of the way, Quodcun{que} signum saluatoris: and suffered them not upon an hope to have their abuses preached against. Leo the third did the like; and Constantine the sift his son, which was the Emperor that called the seventh general Synod at Constantinople, to ratify and confirm this course of abolition.

#Sect. 29. Preaching as it is now in England is not sufficient to remove the abuses of the Cross, the Cross it self remaining.

THirdly, it is no wisdom to prescribe a medicine that doth not reach so far as the disease doth reach, as preaching doth not. For preaching wants in many places where the Cross is used, & where it is, many preachers neglect as notorious faults as this, and some are corrupted in their judgment, some desirous to please; some are infected with the spirit of emulation to add affliction to the misery of their brethren, who are of a diverse judgment. Polidore Virgil desireth more preaching, against abuses of Crosses & Images of his time. Howbeit, as a man out of hope to have them ever by these means amended. When Gabriel Biell setteth down, teaching (as we do now) for a remedy against the abuse of Images. Cassander himself replieth, istud quidem recte dicitur, &c. This is well said, but I would these teachers were not themselves the causes of this superstition, or at the least the nourishers of it, in the hearts of the simple: neither is it enough, if the people by sermons and admonitions be revoked from error, unless by the common care of Princes & Bishops it be effected, that with as little a do as may be, omnis huiusmodi errorum occasio praescindatur. What that our book of Homilies it self, rejecteth this pretence of preaching as insufficiēt? not only because it often wanteth, but also because whē it informeth, yet it doth not so much prevail as whē the monuments of Idolatry themselves are removed. Lastly, thus Bucer, Si dicamus vsum istorum, signorum salutarem posse restitui per doctrinam, videmus doctrinam alijs deesse, alijs covs{que} non prodesse: sublata ita{que} haec signa malim, quam retenta. Fourthly, whether is it better to fill up the pit (as God commandeth) or set one to warn the passengers they fall not into it? Must not our governors make good to the Lord, every soul that shall miscarry, either by his own blindness or deafness; or by the watchman's sleep or doumbnesse, for that his course is disobeyed; a course that would have cleared all danger? and a contrary course taken, which neither is so wise nor safe? And let the commandment of the rail, and of the battlement be adjoined. For as the former forbiddes all occasions of throwing down, so this commandeth to bring in place all occasions and all means of staying up. Woe worth (therefore) the careless exposing of the precious souls of men to the danger of any Idol, from which the Lord in love hath fenced them (as it were) with a double hedge. I speak not here, how this course doth tempt the Lord; or how near it approacheth to that hardiness (yea hardness of heart) that will have Crosses and other Images for the trial of men's strength, least it should be idle. For the credit of the Church, least it should be esteemed weak, and for a private credit also (to wit) to avoid the blot and stain of pusilanimitie. Such men, if they disdain to learn of Scithians, Nemo contemnendo vicit, etiam ferrum rubigo consumit. I send them to a Christian writer, who thus can counsel him in the like case of adultery bodily, the victory is uncertain, quando pugnatur inter arma hostilia; and it is a foolish thing, Arctari cupere ad laborem quando offertur ab{que} vllo periculo delicatus triumphus, the sight of the harlot (such as spiritually this sign is) serveth for nothing, save ad augendas impugnationes, it is far better, vt homo cognoscat se infirmum, vt fortis existat, quam vt fortis videri velit, & infirmus emergat, Last of all, quanto quis{que} magis ab aduersis est, tanto minus aduersa sentit. Fifthly, what shall the people be taught? the right use of the Cross? what need they be troubled about learning his use at all? who hardly are brought to hear willingly the necessary points of their salvation. What that the doctrine of the right use of it is so hard, that a man may say of the Cross in particular, what Erasmus of all other Images. They may more easily themselves be thrown out of the Church, then their right use defined. And know we not the beaten proverb, which experience trieth too true, populus non intelligit acuta? Lastly, is it safe to propose to the people, these controversies not so material of things unnecessary? For both A Paul forbiddeth to assume the weak to the controversies of disputation about things that are indifferent, (such as the Cross is held to be) and A Constantine will not have the people burdened with the preaching of any matter controuersed, which is not of weight and moment to be known.

#Sect. 30.

SIxtly, what though the people might be taught, and it were fit they should, it is overruled by an Adiaphorist himself, that till occasio superstitionis praescindatur, nullus superstitionis finis sperandus est. And home authority hath permitted this to be published touching the Cross, Doctrine will not prevail with the people, if the Cross it self, (which is the thing they trust to, and delight in) be not taken from them. The Adiaphorism of Saxony, and Interim of Lipsia, enjoin the keeping of the holyday of Corpus Christi with this elusion, that there might be a Sermon on that day to teach the people (as I take it) against the abuse thereof. Hereby see, how large the mockage of this excuse is, The people may be taught against the abuse? Indeed the suffering of a thing that hath but a show of conformity with popery, doth ten times more hurt then peaching is able to do good. Doth meat nourish so fast as poison extinguish? Or Physic heal so fast as the pestilence doth infect? or in a leaven is there not a quicker power to make sower, then is in any drugge to sweeten? Add that the people are moved more with the sight of the Cross which they see made, then with any words of the preacher which they understand hardly, attend unwillingly; and they mark more what the preacher doth, then what he saith; and while the law commandeth the Cross, it will seem but Puritanism what is spoken against it. And last of all, if a preacher shall make the Cross, and the same preach against it being abused, the people with whom the abuse of it, is (for the most part) the right use of it, will think he speaketh one thing, and doth another. So that here the Counsel hath place which one in a like case giveth. Quis videns te, &c. who seeing thee (the messenger of Christ) praying at the Altar, before the Image of a crucifix attired with the Priestly Vestments will not think, that thou also doest not only bear with these rites, but also approve them? whence it will follow, that when thou shalt afterwards teach otherwise, none will believe thee. For he that teacheth otherwise then he doth, destroyeth what he buildeth: and on the other side buildeth that which he overthroweth. There hath here place also what a whole Church wrote about the like rites of popery retained. Quod vero quidam ineptiunt, &c. Whereas some fondly say that the doctrine of bad ceremonies should be free, and that they should freely be reproved, it is ridiculous. For how can a Pious Pastor administer that, in which his conscience reprehendeth him, and perpetually observe that, which himself reproveth daily before the whole Church? Who will give any credit at all to their doctrine, who build up again things by themselves reprehended, condemned, rejected, and are compelled daily to preach against themselves as against impenitent men? How can peace & quietness be settled there, where the Pastors of the Church reprove and tax publicly those things, which the court commandeth shall be observed without all violation? Come we a little nearer home. It is known that Peter preached against the abuse of the Jewish ceremonies, to which the Concision turned them; so that by the license of this excuse, he might now lawfully conform to them, as to ceremonies of edification for the Jews. But Paul thinketh this his conformity is but hypocrisy; destroying that which before he had built, which our writers lay open thus: Antiochiae non recte &c. Peter at Antioch walked not with a right foot to the truth. For, eating with the Gentiles he used aright the Christian liberty, but when certain Jews came from James, he withdrew himself fearing the Jews: and by this means, what before he had built of the Christian liberty, that now he destroyed again, and approveth ipso facto, the necessity of the Jewish rites, to give contentment to the Jews. Our case (as I take it) doth symbolize with this of Peter; who by our disvse of popish ceremonies, have disclaimed (until now) the necessity and virtue of them. So that, if now (for fear to displease) or to differ from some great men (such as James was then to Peter ) and should conform our selves to them, that would be destroyed what hath been built by us; and we in [fact] should approve with Peter what our [preaching] must disprove. A miserable case and full of scandal, the people having in their mouths ever, Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam.

Seventhly, to preach against the abuse somewhat, but not all. The duty of zeal towards God, of confession towards the truth, of love towards a neighbors soul, requireth also an abolition. For must Christ's spouse be chaste in word and not in deed also? abandoning from her all love-tokens of former adultery; and must not the truth be professed in practice as well as in preaching? and is not example as necessary as doctrine for the edifying of an neighbor? Well fare our old divines, At inquiunt docemus, &c. They tell us they teach against the worshipping of these Images, as if God of old did not this far more diligently by Moses and the Prophets, then we can do it now. Why would he (then) beyond this teaching have Images also taken away? because it sufficeth not by word of mouth, to teach that evil is not to be done, but the scandals and the provocations, the causes & the occasions of that which is evil, must also be removed. So another, we are not only to teach the people [sapere fortius] but we are even. [exemplo] also to [prouehere] and set forward their edification. And this needful for the present, is much more necessary for time to come. Which, who knoweth whether God will bless with preaching or no? Charles the great, leaveth Crosses and Images standing; willing their worship to be preached against, this (in part) is done for his time, and gross Idolatry is stopped a little, during his life. But what after his death? Did not Idolatry then reenter like a flood upon the West, so that Charles his son was constrained to write a book sharper then his Fathers was.

#Sect. 31. Opposits objection answered, which is, the abuses of the Cross are sufficiently reformed, because the Altars Shrynes, Images, &c. be utterly removed, &c.

WE have weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, the two first places of the sign of the Cross: the one extenuating the late abuse, the other extolling the first use of it, and have found them both too light, so will the third be found likewise, which justifieth our present use as if from the late abuse to the use prime, it were sufficiently restored already. To wit, not only possible is it unto us, being so good surgeons as we are, to cure the Cross from all abuse, the Cross it self remaining, but also it is done already God's commandment being satisfied by the pulling down of Altars, Shrines, Images, Crucifixes and material Crosses, with which we would content our selves (say our Opposites) if there were any reason in us, since the Idolatry of the Papists is by these means sufficiently disgraced. First, know we whom we justify in this excuse, and from whose ward-rope we have stolen it? If this argument do hold, then did Leontius reason well. I cannot be a favorer of Idols, seeing it is known I have destroyed, multa Idolorum phana. Again, we need not break down all Images (saith the Papists) whē the people do abuse them, their abuse must be corrected; if it cannot, then shall it suffice to break down that one Image that is abused, or some one of them for example to the rest, after the example of King Hezekiah in breaking down the brazen serpent, which how doth Doctor Fulke confound by proof apparent, that Hezekiah brake not down the serpent only, but all other Idols that were in his time abused. Secondly, distinctions framed between Idols and Idolothites to excuse any one sort of them, where the Law distinguisheth not, and where the difference which they import is only secundum magis & minus, is but for one to build up a wall without the leauell of the word; and for others to daube it over with untempered mortar. What that this mortar is tempered to our hands at Rome. The Bishop of Eurex and his fellows make a difference between pictures in tables, and pictures in walls: who doth not laugh at them? Gregorius de Valentia out of Peter misinterpreted, 1. Pet. 4.3. maketh a difference between Idols that be abhominable, and Idols that be not abhominable. Who doth not abhor him? Bellarmine maketh a difference between Images of true things, and Images of false things, as if the one were Idols, the other were not. Adrian maketh a difference between an Image and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, statua abiecti cuiusuis animalis, as if the latter were only forbidden, the former not. The Greek Church maketh a difference between Images painted, and Images graven: who holdeth with them? Now of the same linnadge is the difference of our Opposits between the material and mystical Cross; that of the Rood-loft, and this of the Font, the Cross, of the Supper, and this of Baptism; If he were not ill, why was he removed? If this be good, how is he ill? Seeing like the former Images by Papists distinguished preposterously, they be of one kind, and differ only in little and great, to grant the most that can be supposed. Now this difference excuseth not in any one commandment, because he that forbiddeth robbery, forbiddeth stealing: and he that forbiddeth adultery, forbiddeth fornication: and he that forbiddeth slaying, forbiddeth mayming: nor yet in diverse commandments neither, because he that breaketh the least is guilty of the greatest, for that he disobeyeth him that gave them all. Very fit for this purpose are the words of Jerome, Fur non solum, &c. A man is judged a thief, not only in great matters, but also in small: for that which is stolen cometh not into account: that which is considered, is the mind of the stealer. As in fornication and adultery, the fornication and adultery is not therefore made diverse, because the whore is fair or rich, deformed or poor, but whatsoever she be, the fornication and adultery is still one and the same. See we not from hence how little service this our coined distinction doth us? For as in the bodily adultery it is the mind that is respected: whether the harlot be fair or foul, rich or poor, it skilleth not: So in the spiritual it is the honor that maketh guilty, and not the Idol, whether he be material or aerial, permanent or transeunt, painted or graven, cunningly drawn or botcherly made, poor or bedecked with Jewels. So in the Scripture, the popish Idols, whether they be of wood or of gold, they are all one: & the Images of the heathen are thrown all of them into one heap, whether they be of the common sort, or of exquisite grauing by the art of man. And in the Fathers, Omnis forma & formula, Idolum se dici exposcit, be it little or great, and when Jesuits quarrel about Pesilim & Massecoth, which they interpret sculptile, conflatile, they are answered by us, that howsoever properly they are graven and cast Images, yet by a Synecdoche they are taken for Images of what making soever: the question being not, by what art Images are made, but to what use, and how they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful. But if there be any odds between the material and mystical Cross, it is the mysticell that hath the start. Therefore

#Sect. 32. Reasons why the aerial Cross ought rather to be abolished then the material.

THirdly, we reply that of the two, the Cross aerial hath more need to be abolished then the material. For, first in the seeming of our Opposites it is a thing of less account, and we know the baser the Idol is, the worse is the Idolatry. As Egypt that adored a worm, is worse then the Greek that chose a man: or Persia which chose the sun and the stars to worship them. No matter (said Jerome before) whither the harlot be rich or poor, fair or foul. True unless to this effect. The fowler the harlot and the baser, and the more loathsome is the lust of the bodily adulterer: even so the baser the Cross aerial, the more execrable is popish Idolatry committed to it. Peius adulterio turpis adulter obest. Secondly, It may be said here, as is the mother, so is the daughter. Provided that the Cross aerial be acknowledged the mother of the material. For, was it not the sign of the forehead that begat all the other Crosses that were material in the eyes of all the writers? Arose not the material Cross some years after the aerial sign, which at the first was a Cross simply. Afterward it grew to be a crucifix, and all out of that reverence which the Cross of the forehead had amongst the Fathers? Thirdly, there is no doubt but the less is blessed of the greater. Greater therefore is the aerial sign of the Cross which blesseth and sanctifieth a temple it self, & all things in it, and so (as I take it) the very material Cross and all. And seeing consecration and holiness is the fountain and the womb of all superstition, this Cross must needs be the more fertile thereof, the more in estimate of holiness it ever hath borne away the bell, wherewith the people bless themselves, whence expect they to be sanctified before God? to be helped against the devil? What is their Orcigalea? What their Delphicus gladius to speak in the common phrase they use? which is their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whereby is wrought their obsignation, their consignation, which giveth the holy Ghost himself? which is their signum vivificum, their signum salutare, their vexillum, their vexillum triumphale, is it not the Cross mystical? Shall we tread the sign of that under our feet (saith Tiberius the Emperor) wherewith we use to bless our foreheads? Here the material Cross is but a token of the aerial which is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the same. If the sign of the Cross in aere fluido be of such power (saith the University of Collen) then why not the Cross material too? Here the material waiteth on the aerial for credit and for countenance from it. There is a table in Germinians Church at Mutina of Lucius the Pope, blessing the city with the sign of the Cross, at his departure in these words: Benedicta sit terra quam incolitis; & benedicti vos & posteri vestri in perpetuum. Here the material is a monument of the mystical. There is a rule that no man make a material Cross in any part of his body: and they that in Baptism burn Crosses material in the foreheads of their children, are enrouled among the heretics. Here the material Cross is condemned, when the aerial sanctifieth, consecrateth, and maketh holy unto God. But the material is more gross, more sensible, and it enticeth more with some perhaps. But there is reason with some to the contrary, what the aerial Cross in popish estimation? The more incapable a thing is of worship in it self, (saith the Papist) the more capable of [latria] and the more fit to be coadored with Christ. What the aerial Cross in popish apprehension? We adore not any Cross for the matter (saith the Papist) but for the form: so that the less material, and the more formal: so much the quicker is the passage ab imagine ad rem significatam: in which motion of the mind all the worshipping doth consist. Last of all, what the aerial Cross in popish use? Is it not more common to use? is it not more ready to be used at all assays? and doth it not serve all times and turns, better then the Cross material? Hath it not (also) more excuses attending on it, to color hypocrisy, whereby this spiritual adulteress, may (like the bodily) wipe her mouth, and say, I have not sinned.

#Sect. 33. It avails nothing to remove the material Cross, retaining the mystical.

FOurthly, what though the material Crosses done away by our Church, were every way worse? To remove the material Cross, and to leave the mystical behind in God's service, is to break the hand of Dagon, not the head, if the head, yet to leave the stompe behind; to remove the adultery of the breasts (if of the breasts wholly) but to leave the adultery of the forehead behind, and the whorish painting (as it were) of the face: at a word it is, to remove the flesh of the adultery (if the flesh thoroughly) but to leave the garment behind, which it hath touched and spotted. This, how can it stand before that God, that useth to censure a reformation (though never so upright in doctrine) if there be but an high place standing? which perchance was never abused to Idolatry (as the sign of the Cross hath been) and who never contenteth himself with a reformation of his Church in part, but requireth a total cleansing of his house, and that from the ⁶ abused instruments of his own service: how much more (then) from Cross and Surplice, which have been instrument of the service, how much more then from Cross and Surplice, which have been instruments of the service of Devils? Indeed the reformation public should be such, as may further the private purity of every man, whose throat and belly if they must be pure from the meat of the Idol: then much more his membra which are augustiora, must be kept pure from the Idol it self, as his hands, his eyes, his ears, from the Surplice and from the mystical sign of the Cross? Fifthly, whereas the abolishing of the Cross material is thought to throw disgrace sufficient upon the mystical Cross of popery, we are most humbly to entreat our godly governors to take knowledge of a contrary event, there being nothing (indeed) that doth credit it more then this, that the Cross of the forehead standeth when all other Crosses fall, and that by authority of law and magistrate: which, if they be not the only Lord's of the common people's faith, yet are known to sway it more, & that awry in such a case then were convenient. And as the removal of the Cross material graceth (after this fashion) the aerial left behind: so the aereal left behind another way graceth the material that is cast out; against the doctrine of our Church that is confirmed by Act of Parliament, which therefore excludeth an Image out of the Church, because if it be suffered there, he will give credit to other Images, that other where are worshipped. When did not the Cross material & aererall mutually scratch and claw one another? when the Cross material was to be taken for the recovery of the holy land: what course hath Bernard but to ply the Cross aerial? that which he doth in healing the sicike, and so prevaileth that Conrade the Emperor himself assumeth the material Cross, & resolveth on the journey. Robert Bishop of Nazareth stayeth the flame of the fire, with the Cross material, Paschalis with the Cross aerial. Was the material only graced by the former, the aerial only by the latter? do not both give credit to all Crosses, yea to the whole religion of popery in the eyes of all Papists? And now that we are lighted upon the mention of these Papists, if it be true that Tertullian hath, Nihil tam dignū deo, quam quod indignum Idolo, then can we not do God better service, then to offer the greatest indignity that we are able to the aerial sign of the Cross. We may perceive by this, that they draw it to the gracing of their religion, because they take nothing more indignly, then to see the least indignity offered against it. Can the sign of the Cross grow cold & he not burn? Is the sign of the Cross touched, & he not tormented? or can any take it down, & he not take on? Tush (say our Opposits) of the sign of the Cross, non in eo po sitae sunt fortunae graciae, but I shall never hear so much out of the mouth of the Papist. Who, as if Haniball were before the gates, and all the forts of Rome were shaking, useth to cry out all religion goeth down, if the Cross go down, a way is open to all Atheism, if he be away. Yea Christ himself is abandoned, if he be abolished. And is there not (then) a way opened in his opinion to all popery, when the honor of the Cross goeth up (as it doth by our making of it in honorable use) I say by our making of it, for Co limus qui facimus vt coli possit, diligentia nostra illius memor est.

#Sect. 34. Another Opposites objection answered: which is, we use it as a civil ceremony, not religious.

ALthough we have covered the mouth of the Cross in all former excuses of abuse extenuated, first use extolled, and late use purged, yet being an harlot that is talkative she still proceedeth to multiply words, as if her present purged use were thoroughly clean both for the manner of her placing in God's service, & for her place where. Touching the former, why is the Cross cried out against (say some of our Opposits) as if it had an use religious? There is no such matter. For we do use it in our Baptism as a ceremony merely civil; in which manner used by us, it is as lawful in that sacrament, as in the coin which we bear in our purses; where we our selves (they say) do wish it, not only hold it lawful. Howbeit, how easy is it to justify our use of the Cross to be too religious, to be lawful? for the understanding whereof, we must run over the two sorts of religious things. The first of them are religious in a sense common, rising from Religio as it is a virtue, in which sense all is religious that is done to an holy end: the end being it, that determineth every use, as scholemen teach. In this sense the Cross is [Religious] even out of God's service and ever hath been, since at the first it served to profess the faith against Pagans, to sanctify omnem progressam to civil business, and omnem actum thereof. Did Constantine set it in his banners, or on the shoulders of his soldiers? he did it assuefacere exercitum suum ad colendum deum, and to make known hunc Deum colo, cuius signum meus portat exercitus. Have Christian kings since his time adorned their crowns patibuli salutaris pictura? they do it to show they profess Christ Jesus. Last of all, when a malefactor saved his life by flying to sanctuary, by the ancient laws of our land, he was to be banished, carrying a Cross in his hands to the sea side. This was signum seruatae vitae, religions ergo. This considered, the sign of the Cross is never mearely a civil thing, even in civil obiectes themselves. Mixtly, and for the end of his use he remaineth still religious. Howbeit, our Opposites turn this against us, we use it in Baptism for a civil end (say they) therefore it is civil, and in respect of this end lawful. First, this iumpeth with the Lutheran, who excuseth his religious Images in the Church, by like civil end and historical use: and with the Papist, who excuseth his Jewish ceremonies, in that he doth use them, Non quasi ceremoniali praecepto legis, sed sicut ecclesiae statuto. And because the thing which he useth, is quiddam secundum se conueniens, ex instituto Ecclesia, which is our language up and down. Lastly, this iumpeth with the politique of Augusta, who enforceth the Popes new Callender on this color, the Ministers shall use it in their feasts, not as received from the Pope, but as enjoined by the Senate. Secondly, though Cross and Surplice may for their end in some sense be termed [Civil] as all rites that serve for order, yet this end maketh it not lawful, because though an ill end maketh an ill action (for that even one defect doth suffice to hatch a sin) yet a good end (such as order and decency is) and the obedience to the Magistrate cannot make an action good, because the integrity of the object, and all other circumstances must here concur, which in these rites are wanting. The Cross is an Idolothite; which a Corinthian may not eat for any civil use or ende of peace and friendship, or any civil commodity else. The Cross is an Agagite, devoted to death and to destruction, a Mordecai may not bow down unto it, though he pretend, that it is only to perform obedience to the Magistrate, that he performeth this honor to him. The Cross sorteth us with the Papists, as much as the Garland sorted the Christians with the Pagans in the days of Tertullian. But a Christian may not wear a Garland, no not on the birth day of the Emperor, though he pretend a civil end, and civil honor to his Prince. Our sign of the Cross, the Papist interpreteth to be a liking of his rites like as the Pagan (in Julian's days) interpreted frankencense thrown into the fire before the Throne and seat of Julian, to be a profession of Pagan religion. This two Christians may not do, no though they do it to a civil end alone, to wit, to honor and obey their Prince.

#Sect. 35. Pretence of a civil end of the Cross excuses not the Cross, used in the worship of God.

THirdly, though a civil end might make such a thing lawful, yet were this sign never the near, because this end is not finis operis, which giveth value to every action, but finis operantis only to which it pleaseth the vser to turn him: which in this question turneth the scale neither one way nor tother. The natural end of the Cross is religious as hath been shown, and the same operative; and therefore evil. It pleaseth our Church to use it to a civil end which is good, this end, is it anything to the purpose, it being accidental? Timoleon his soldiers are much amazed for meeting an asse laden with oppium, which was used at home in funerals. his bidding them to wear garlands of it, in sign of victory, had it been any encouragement to them, if this use had been devised by himself diversely from the use of Istmus games, where men ware it that wan the prize? so until the common use of the Cross abroad be good, our good use (diverse from the common use) cannot encourage us to use it. How doth it excuse Ismenias from adoring the king of Persia, that it is to take up a ring (let fall) that he stoupeth down before him? For as long as this stouping (in common use) is the adoring of the king, he is interpreted to have adored him. So our diverse end of crossing, maketh not our case diverse: It is the common use of the Cross which hath been ever, and (yet) is general, by which our crossing must be judged. I speak on supposal. The Jesuits judgment is good and sound, common and usual kneeling (being in the common estimate a worship divine) it would not have excused Mordecaie if he dad bowed down to Haman, though he had kneeled with a civil kneeling only, and that to perform a civil obedience to the King. It will be objected here that Naaman's bowing in the house of Rimmon was lawful enough, because civil. And Tertullian alloweth a Christian to be present at the sacrifices of Pagan marriages; servants (also) to wait on their masters while they are worshipping of their Idols, because this was a civil presence, and not for religious ende. We answer, the case is diverse from this of the Cross. The finis operis, the end of the work, in the Cross is commonly religious and evil. The finis operis, in these instances is in common estimate civil and good; performed to the marriage of the bridegroom; not to the sacrifice in the first, not to the Idol, but to the master in the second. And the sign of the Cross is an aliene rite, having an estate most inward in Idolatrous worship, whereas no gesture was allowed, no rite, no ceremony, that had coincidence with Idolaters, in the instances premised, as these words show: Nullum (puto) circa haec officia periculum obseruari, de flatu Idololatriae quae interuenit. Causae enim considerandae sunt quibus praestatur officium. Haec nos homini, non Idolo, officiosos habet. Sum tantum spectator sacrificij: These offices make us dutiful to men, not to the Idol. For I am but only a beholder of the sacrifice, &c. When the Duke of Saxony was to bear the sword before Charles the fifth, he was present at the Mass; but with protestation that he was there, for a civil duty only: and besides he abstained from all Mass gestures, and was only alooker on. The like do Papists themselves prescribe, not Protestants only, to wit, that no civil presence sufficeth for joining with heretics, unless both naturally the action be civil, and also commonly known and rated to be such. Now the Cross being not such, nor so thought of, it can no more be used in Baptism, to the ende of civil obedience; then Christians might set up boughs, and light tapers at their doors to the honor of their magistrate like as other heathen did. For I may answer out of Tertullian, as concerning Cross and Surplice: seeing these, ad Daemonias pertinent, belong to the devils, among the Papists as much as the former boughs, and tapers among the Pagans, our use will give credit to the popish Idols, as the use of those did to the paganish: and omnis honor Idoli est Idololatria, All honor done to the Idol is Idolatry. And the honor and obedience of the magistrate was pretended as much in them, as now in these. Yet Tertullian would not justify them, but made this answer. Si hominis causa est, cogitemus omnem Idololatriam in hominis causam esse, If it be the cause of man, let us think all Idolatry to be for the cause of man. Further yet, we find some things casheered by our selves out of God's service which might far better pretend a civil use then these. Consider a little the permixtion of the water with the wine in the Lord's supper. The very finis operis in it from the beginning was merely civil: to wit, to abate the heat of the wine, for which cause the ancients called it a mingled cup, a dilution, and a tempering of the wine. A strange thing we should hold this addition of the water unlawful, even to the suffering of an Anathema, out of an opinion that such addition is against Christ's institution, the ceremony being such as is thought Christ did use, such as the Papists never did so much abuse; such as had a civil end and the same good, when still to a Cross is cried without ceasing [great is Diana ] a ceremony not so ancient, an abused ceremony to the depth of all iniquity, only upon a fond pretence of an end civil which is not finis operis, the end of the work, to it, but finis operantis, but the end of the worker only which never excuseth.

#Sect. 36. The use of the Cross is religious not civil as the opposites proved in this Section, and that which followeth.

WE have examined the first sort of things religious in nature and end, and find no shelter for the Cross. Come we now unto the second, which are religious in sense special, to wit, in [State]. Here, that is religious which is Ecclesiastical: that civil, which political: that religious which belongeth to God's service: that civil which hath the use solemn in the service of common wealth. To this agreeth the Etimologie of religio and religiosum which cometh a religando ad Deum, from binding to God, or else a relinquendo, the common [state] of civil things. The Scripture doth agree likewise, which calleth the bread holy and religious, when it is set on the table in the holy place; but when it is taken away from thence, then it beginneth to be Communis, as Tremellius doth interpret. When a vestiment is holy, it must not be carried out of the Temple, no not to the high Priests house. That which the Priest putteth on when he goeth out of the Temple is vestis communis. This is imitated by the Canon law, Opus est vt de ecclesia, mystici poculi forma non exeat, It is necessary that the form of the mystical cup go not out of the Church. The Fathers (also) will have the garments to be religious, that are used in the Church: the garments to be common that are without it. When Charles the great forbad the doorekeepers to use common garments, pitcheth he not (as it were) the bounds of things common and religious at the porch of the Church. For the first, to begin there; for the latter there to end? We our selves say against Lutherans, that the Images are religious which are in the Church; and against Papists, that the bread of the supper is bread common [extra vsum] out of the use of the holy Sacrament. Howbeit it doth not suffice to make a thing to be religious, that it is in the Temple, unless also it be of it, and have [state] in it, as was before mentioned. The old oke under which Jacob buried his Images, standeth within the bounds of the Tabernacle in Joshua's time, and the doves and the oxen, are within the court of the Temple, which yet notwithstanding are not religious for want of inuesture, and of incorporation. A stranger leaveth meat in an Idols temple, is it (therefore) religious, because in a religious place? No, because it was not consecrate to the Idol. The cup of the supper in the days of Tertullian had a shepherd pictured in it, bearing a sheep upon his shoulder, which yet was no more religious then the statue of a good shepherd, which Constantine set up in foro, in the market, because it was in the service of God without a state. Now, 3. things are required to a state, Order, Obligation, and a kind of Immobilitie, and the Cross and Surplice have all three of them in our Leiturgie. The Cross hath an order dependant on Baptism, to which it is added. An obligation it hath, because it is ordained by our Church. It hath also [quietem] left in holy use, and a kind of immobilitie, a kind I say which doth suffice. As for the Cross, Leo the Emperor made a law, Ne signum crucis inferretur in loca publica, into common places, and Theodosius, that places should be made religious, collocato in ijs Christianae religions signo. As for the Surplice the old use thereof had immobilitie altogether in God's service; it being utterly unlawful to wear it elsewhere. I know the friends of these ceremonies would be loath to take them down, so much as one hairs breadth. Neither will they wholly swerve from Surius, misliking a Cross should be used by Archers for a mark to shoot at in their pastimes.

IT will be objected that the Cross hath a state civil amongst us too, in coins, banners, and the like. Where, seeing we like him well enough, why should he be misliked in Baptism? First, we deny him to be absolutely lawful, even in such civil use, when once he cometh to be sub veneratione Idoli, under the worship of the Idol, and to give the least occasion to think the better of popery, or to cast some show or some shadow of it, then he groweth to be unlawful. For consider the origen and beginning of this [state] civil, in coins and banners. Even in war Constantine holdeth the adored [labarum] of the old Romans to be unlawful: and in coins, the old Images of Mercury and Hercules: and therefore setteth up in both the Cross which then the Idolaters most of all hated, and which made most profession against them. The Cross (then) being become an old adored I doll of Rome, must he not be done away (caeteris paribus) even out of coins and banners themselves upon like reason, and some other ensign be brought in use, which may profess against the Papists? So shall we follow the zeal of Constantine, as also of others whose coins and banners knew no mark, but such as made distinction manifest between them and Idolaters. We see this in the Machebees, who bore in their flag, M. C. B. I. expressing the sentence which is in Exodus 15.11. Quis est par tibi deus Iohouah, who among the gods is like unto thee Jehovah? Whence they were termed Macbaei, and after Macabaei. We see it in Theodosius, who bore in his ensign against Eugenius, this name of XRS Christ. we see it in the religious of France, whose standart spake thus, pro Christo & Patria, for Christ and the Country. That of Alphonsus was better then a mark confounding with the aliens whose symbol was a Pelican, shedding her heart blood for her young, with this imprese, pro lege & grege, for the law and the flock. Let noue think this to be preciseness more then needs. An Idols name must not be mentioned in common talk, ne illius maiestatem confirmemus. No book must be read in a common school, wherein Idols be mentioned, that are instantly worshipped, ne affirmentur dum traduntur, least they be avouched whilst they be taught. No spectacle of theirs must a Christian behold in a common Theater; no habit of Aesculapius Priests must be used, no not when a cock is dressed for private use. No picture of the Sun must be seen in a Christian man's shield , quando deputatur ad Persas, the adorers of the sun. No Idolothite must be suffered in common or in private use, in which the honor of the Idol is not defaced. To go no further then scripture it self. Is not the gold of the Image abhominable, even in private use, when the Idol is countenanced by it? The Image accurssed in a private place, when kept with honor? The Idols Iewll hated of God, whē secretly put underneath the garment? The Idols meat a partaking with Devils, even at a common table when it is known? Pray lett me appeal even to our own practice: Did we not deal with many Crosses material at first, even out of the Church, as Diagoras dealt with Hercules when he put him to his thirtenth labor which was to boil his lentils? And the common use of crossing, especially our bedds and other dead things, we use to condemn in the Fathers themselves: which, why condemn we? it being ancient, it being civil, all while we press the baptism, cross, which being no auncienter and not so civil must needs be more unlawful? who can spitt at the Temple frankensence (saith one) when he seeth it on the altar, all while he hath frankensence in his seller at home? Or with what face can a man exorcise Satan in the Church, that in his own house hath wares for his service? But with more reason may I infer from allowance religious to that which is civil, not of wares that may be Idolatrous, and superstitious, after they are sold, but of Crosses that are already, how can we condemn Crosses at home, that exact crossing in the church? or with what face can we condemn papists for Crossing, who justify them with our own example? for we may reason as Augustine doth, speaking against the riot and excessive usage in his time, upon the holy-days of Martyrs, quis audet vetare priuatim, quod cum frequentatur in sanctis locis, honor martyrū nominatur? who dareth forbid home crossinge as execrable, which being used in the church, is held to be honorable before the Lord?

BVt what if the Cross were lawful, absolutely in civil use? for in the second place we answer, the argument holdeth not from civil use to use religious, as our opposites think it doth. The Cross is lawful in coins, in banners, and princes balls, therefore in the Sacrament of our new birth? First, this reasoning is popish. For so they for their Images. an Image is lawful in coin, therefore in the Church: and Beza himself setteth forth Images, virorum illustrinm, therefore saints, Images are lawful in the church, & if the Images of an earthly prince may be worshipped, then why not the Images of saints as well? The Lutherans thus reason also up and down. The Iconomachi can endure well enough in their pursses a Portugal Cruzado, in which there is the sign of the Cross with this word, in hoc signo vince, and are they not blind (then) in that they are not able to see the Crosses lawfulness in the church as well? Secondly, the ground whereupon this reason standeth, yieldeth no other foundation then this, what is lawful in civil use, is lawful also in use religious. The contrary whereof (indeed) is true in honorable and helpful things themselves. For non tantum illicita prohibentur in Ecclesijs, verum etiam profana quaecunque, licet alibi legitime exerceantur. What more honorable then a session for judgment? What more helpful to the service of God, then Oxen for sacrifice, and money to buy them? What more allied to the love and charity required in the service of God, then a feast of charity? All which commendable in civil use, must yet forbear the tent it self, where religious use doth dwell. It is a golden saying of Augustine, and enrolled in the canon it self, in oratorio praeter orandi, psallendique cultum, penitus nihil agatur, vt nomini huit, & opera iugiter impensa concordet. Hence thus we reason, is the Cross a thing mearely civil, then is it a sin to bring it into the Church, where ought to be nothing, in [state] religious but the parts of God's worship. when the Jews told Gaius Caligula, sacrificamus provobis, he answered in choller, at non sacrisicatur nobis. Our Governors (then) being Godly, will be contented, that in the Church we sacrifice for them, though we sacrifice not unto them: which we should do if to please them, we should defile the worship of God with these their ordinances under a color of a civil obedience to them. Add to the former, that of Jerome, who thinketh there is a post of man, set by God's post, when Civil things are mixte with sacred, vt nihil intersit inter sacrum & profanum. But the Cross is so nearly conjoined to Baptism, that who among the vulgar people discerneth between them that the one is holy (as the ordinance of God) the other a thing mearly civil, as the ordinance of man? Chrysostom (lastly) thought it did derogate from the honor of God, to suffer an Image of the Empresse Eudoxia, set up near unto the Church with stage plays celebrated to her honor after the heathenish and paganish manner: but we have more cause to stand then he, who are required by our Godly governors for their honor, not only to suffer near the Church, but also to bring into the Church, and into the service of the same, not an Image of their own (which we love) but an Image & an Idol of Antichrist him self, which, from our hearts we hate with execration. Thirdly therefore, if the Church bar her door against civil things, because not consecrate unto God, then much more against such things, as have been consecrate unto Idols, of which the sign of the Cross is one. See we not howe the Jews follow in war the Roman standarde though an Idol to the pagans, when yet they will rather choose to die then see it brought into the Temple? and suffer the Roman Eagle stand upon Antonia, when they will not let it stand, no not on the temples porche? and use the image of Gaius in coin, when Petronius is resisted from setting it in the holy place?▪ From the Idol come we to the Idolothite; which is it as lawful within the Church as it is without it? No. Paul alloweth it in the shambles (we know) and then only, not in any use religious. And the Christians at Antioch, when Julian had consecrate their victuals to Idols, used them only upon this ground, We neither fetch them from a Temple, nor bear them to any, but use them civillie to that use, for which God created them? Next what an Image? Do not we our selves exile Images from the Church, which we now at last approve in civil use? And plead we not the ancient▪ Christians brought no Images into the Church, when out of the Church they used them, and great Constantine set no Crosses up in the Church, who set up many in other places? And what a sign added by man unto the signs of God's appointing? We allow an altar on Jordan-banks in use civil, which in use that is religious we do not approve, some of us at least; who cannot allow Solomon's altar which he added in the temple by any warrant that is ordinarily out of the word. Last of all, what a ceremony, received from without? The new Callender of Pope Gregory the 13. when at Augusta it was commanded, the ministers of the Gospel there thought fit to use it in mere civil matters, not in their feasts, not in their Churches, not in the exercises of Religion. To conclude, It is sinful to bear even a common vessel thorough the temple, what is it then, not to bear through but to bring in (I say) not into the Temple, but into Baptism, which is the holy of holies thereof, not a common vessel only by God vnconsecrate, but even a vessel that is also unclean, I mean a Cross which is an Idol, an Idolothite, an Image forbidden, a sign human, a ceremony popish? And hide we our selves under the pretence of an use civil, when we scorn papists that pretend a civil worship in templarie bowing, and when papists them selves will have no forbidden Images in modo & statu accommodato ad adorandum, though else where they may be used?

#Sect. 39. The fifth objection of the Opposites answered: which is, he is not worshipped in the sacrament, but is only an attendant upon the sacrament.

THe fifth and last defense of the Cross to keep it in possession, standeth on denial of this last point. His state in Baptism is not a state accommodatus ad adorandum, applied to worship, (say our Opposites) seeing there he was never made an Idol by the Papists. And seeing there (now) he is used by us, as an attendant upon the Sacrament, and not as any part thereof. First, this is the Jesuits language up and down. When Images were unlawful in Israel (saith he) yet there were Cherubims and figures of Lions in the Temple lawfully, because being ornaments to other things they were not in statu accommodato ad adorandum. Whereas the lip of truth speaketh otherwise, to wit, that if these figures and these Images had not been by God commanded specially, they had been within the Church unlawful, which is now the Crosses guilt. Secondly, so God hateth the instruments of sin, as that although they be his own creatures (which the sign of the Cross is not) and incapable of sin themselves, yet he disgraceth them from all use forever after; from use honorable at the least, as we may see by that course which he took against the beast abused to murder; or to another unnamed sin. As for the instrument of Idolatry may it be used where it hath not been abused? no, if it hath been abused anywhere like the gold of the Idol in Moses law, it becometh an Anathema everywhere: in regard of civil use it self that is honorable, much more (then) in every use that is religious, which cannot but be honorable. Thirdly, it is idlye said, that the sign of the Cross hath not been made an Idol in Baptism, seeing nowhere else he hath been more abused. Where hath he a more lively signification of Christ Jesus (for which the Papists do adore him.) Where hath he more power against the Devil, ne impediat effectum Baptismi, in which consisteth a chief part of his Idolatry? Last of all, where doth he more sanctify? where is he more operative and effective? for thus one, Signatur prime Baptizandus signaculo crucis in front, in pectore, in occulis, in auribus, in ore, vt totius corporis sensus, hoc signaculo muniantur, cuius virtute omnia nostra sacramēta complentur; & omnia diaboli figmenta frustrantur. Let him that is to be baptized, be signed first with the sign of the Cross in the forehead, breast, eyes, ears, mouth, that the sense of the whole body may be fenced with this sign, by virtue whereof all our Sacraments are fully perfected, and all the illusions of the Devil are frustrated. Here at home in King Edwards Communion book, the Cross was ministered with these words: N. pure, recipe signum sanctaecrucis, tam in front quam in pectore: which Master Bucer (not without cause) censureth as Magicall: which words yet differ not altogether from ours which yet are used. Howbeit, he censureth much more the consecrations of the Cross in Baptism; which are (indeed) mere Idolatrous profanations of this Sacrament, as may appear in one of them (for all the rest,) which runneth thus: Sumat haec aqua Maiestatis tuae Imperio, &c. By the commandment of thy Majesty, let this water take the grace of thine only beloved Son by the holy Ghost; who regenerating this water (fac crucem) prepared, let him make fertile by the secret admixtion of his light: that sanctification being conceived from the immaculat womb of the divine fountain, an heavenly progeny may arise out of it, borne again unto a new creature. Let this holy (fac crucem) and innocent creature, &c. Let it be a living fountain (fac crucem) Let it be a water regenerating (fac crucem) a wave purifying (fac crucem) &c. Wherefore I bless thee thou creature of water by the living God (fac crucem) by the true God (fac crucem) by the holy God (fac crucem) and here let the wax tapers be put into the water: then the Priest must say, Let there come down into the fullness of this Font the power of the holy Ghost, and let the Priest blow thrice into the font, saying, Let him impregnate the whole substance of this water with the effect of regenerating. All these things let the Priest do thrice, both with the candles, & with the words, &c. then let him go forward, & dippe his right thumb into new Chrism, and let him sign the font with the wonted form of the Cross, saying, In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Let this Font be sanctified, &c. Shake we not, do not we tremble at these abuses of prayer, these profanations of God's name, these incantations of the element of this Sacrament, the Cross having a deep hand in them all? Fourthly, what if the Crosses Idolizing made it not everywhere unlawful in use religious, and it were never in the Sacrament by the Papists made an Idol to this hour, so let our Governors deal with us as they shall find, that the very appearing of it in Baptism thorough the show that it beareth of equal honor with the same before the simple, is such à modus accommodatus ad adorādum, as that is nurseth much Idolatry even from Dan unto Bersheba. Leave the people of diverse places to themselves, and they put no such devotion in anything else, as if they had made choice of the cross in worse sense, then Thomas Aquinas once chose the crucifix, when he said to it, Nothing but thee. Leave them not to themselves, but reprove them (as if their Crossing did them no good) and then take up that of Iustus Lipsius, if we err in the sign of the Cross, Quid tum de nobis fiet, what shall then become of us? Lastly, leave the Cross out of Baptism, and Michaes Hubbub is presently raised, If the Preachers take the Cross away from us, what will or can they leave us? In regard hereof who can with pity leave it amongst them? If anything excuse Jehoshaphat or Hezekiah for suffering the Idolatrous Temples which Solomon built, it was because they were lorne, forlorn: which Josiah raised, notwithstanding to prevent all inconvenience. This he did, because these sinckes were of themselves scandalous (saith one) and could not choose but breed offente. But is the Temple of the Idol such, nay is a Temple forlorn so dangerous, and not an Idol himself that flourisheth in service of God? But our people are strong, and not likely to be infected. So are the people of the Papists no ways easily to be infected; no not by the worshipping of the Cross, if we believe them? Non est indicandum (say they) quod populus hodie vlla annili religione imbui possit. In like manner is it, that our Opposites hodie stand on the credit of this their [hodie] forsooth they have caused the Gospel so to abound in the land by their Nonresidencies, and pluralities by their idle and their dumb ministry, as that hodie, let the Devil himself be let loose amongst the people, he is not to be feared to do any hurt. But as there be monsters in the sea, which the seafaring man doth meet, though the Ilander will not believe it: so the poor and vigilant Pastor meeteth in the country with many a monstrous abuse of the ceremonies, though the University (little experienced) or the palace (little troubled with such matters) do not apprehend them. As for the court, their reigneth Aquinas his error. The Cross is so base, as that there is no fear of Idolatry in it, which one well answereth: The meaner or baser a thing worshipped is in it self, the more the people incline to think, that every man who doth adore it, knoweth there is with it or in it a presence of divine power, Let it not be said (then) the Cross is a trifle, it can do no hurt, whole popish service is little else then a Mass of trifling ceremonies, which yet are highly esteemed of the people, through the mean above rehearsed, which if any thinketh is not to be found in the people of this land, he little considereth that the Papist is incomparable for his learning in the eyes of simple men, especially in the case of the Cross, wherein they imagine the state concurreth, and the policy of the whole Realm. But if the sign of the Cross be nothing, then why is it pressed as if it were all in all? Is it fit the messengers of God, and the ambassadors of Jesus Christ should well near be deprived of the air, because they cannot break the air with one of their singers, for fear of stripping and beating the air which they are careful to decline? but this may suffice for the first sin of the ceremonies controuersed, which is their Idolatry.

The Cross is an Image flatly forbidden by the second Commandment.

T He second is through Superstition, which is supra statutum. For whereas the second precept admitteth no ceremony into God's worship, which hath any mixture of Superstition, or any condition superstitious, or so much as the least occasion that leadeth that way, the sign of the Cross will be found guilty of all these, to the breaking of the letter it self of this commandment. For what? is not the sign of the Cross an Image? First it hath been counted of old, greater then any other Image, Charles the great himself being withes, who throweth down Images below the Cross. To him may be annexed that Monk, who in the second Council of Nice was the deputy of the East; who when he saith, Imagines meo iudicio cum vener anda cruce aquiualent, Images in my judgment, are equal with the venerable Cross, plainly bewrayeth the Cross was of undoubted credit when Images were not, and then the reporter of this Synod, who giveth the preeminence of the first place to the Cross, desinierunt venerādam erucem vna enm religiosis imaginibus adorari debere. They have determined, the venerable cross ought to be worshipped with religious Images. Neither may we deprive the Cross aerial of this preeminence, which the Council of Nice maketh equal with the material, & which never yet came short of any priulledge worth our worship, it being dedicated in Christ his death; as well as any other Cross; & being as decent a memorial of it, as any other whatsoever. Secondly, hereby it appeareth, the cross is greater then any other Images are, because it always representing Christ Jesus dying, it doth always set him as adorable before us: Whereas other figures and Images do not represent him dying. Yea, such a gallant is the Cross, that if a spear be but set hear him, though he were not before regarded, yet now presently he becometh a representator of Christ's death worthy to be adored and worshipped. Thirdly, it is the Cross that doth bless all other Images: and it is without controversy that the less is bsessed by the greater. It is the Cross also that brought in the Image. First there was the Cross simple, then the Council added the Image of a man unto it, which now is the crucifix: and there is no question, but the mother is always greater then the daughter.

#Sect. 2. The Cross is directly an Image.

BVt what if the Cross were not greater then other Images? An Image it is, in use religious, of man's devising, therefore a sinner against this holy law of God. In deed no difference in popish schools, between Cross and Crucifix, the one must be adored as well as the other and the very Cross it self simply, is as the similitude of a man stretched forth and crucified, and so by consequent a figure of Christ, though no image be upon it? Be it, an Image strictly taken must bear the shape and similitude of the same species. I trow there is none that will deny but in larger sense the calf of the Israelites was an Image of God? The Ibis, Hyaena, and the Dogg of Egypt were true Images of their false God's, though they bore not the like figure and shape of kind. These beasts were the arms & the cognisences of the men when they were alive whom they represent. Therefore now they bear a kind of similitude of them, though no similitude of their kind, which kind of likeness and similitude in an Image largely taken, doth suffice. Else could not a maunger, a crown a thorn, a spear be Images of the Lord Christ, as now they are defined to be. Indeed, it is representation that is the essence of that Image which this commandment doth include, to wich concordeth the very popish definition, Imago nihil aliud est quā figura quadam cum relatione ad exemplar. An Image is nothing else then a certain figure, having relation to the example. Imagines nihil aliud quam picturae quaedam cum relatione representationis, Images are nothing else then certain pictures with relation of representation: so that the Cross as long as he resembleth Christ, he must be needs an Image of him and of his death. And seeing his death is represented, mediately by the Cross, on which he died, it must be an Image of it likewise. Which, is it not the greatest Devil amongst all the Idols of Rome, against which the Turk is loosed by God him self? For this Cross though more base then the worm him self of Egypt, which the Apostle maketh the basest, hath nevertheless attained to the honor of the most high, to wit, to latria, wherewith God himself is honored, and that by means that are more mean then ever any Idol had. It pleased the Lord to die on a cross, an accursed tree, to show that he did bear our curse. This saith the Cross hath made me blessed, and worthy ever to be honored. A senseless sophistry: yet so plausible, as that it hath prevailed with many in most places of the earth. The Manichees for the trees sake on which Christ died, honored all trees: testifying their reverence towards them by forbearinge to touch their fruit. As for Crosses artificial, there were who adored them in Armenia, for which they were termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These Rome follow to this day, whose children do adore the Cross, because an instrument of Christ's death, as certain heretics honored Judas for the very same cause. Now it being the duty of the Governor, scandala etiam in longinquum nata vt resecet multo magis ea quae sub oculis surgunt, non sinat acorescere. How can he bring the living Image of so great a Belzabub etiam ipso Idolo viuo into God's service and be innocent, especially considering that his Image cannot be there, but he himself must be there likewise? siquidem inseparabilis est à prototypo effigies eius. Again, Qui videt imaginē alicuius, videt eum cuius est imago. Imago pars est Archetypi. Imago nullum habet personam per se, sed subsistit in prototypo. Prototypon est vita Imaginis, ficut anima est corporis, to which there answereth diverse like speeches which the Jesuits cite out of the Fathers. And there is another matter besides this matter which the sign of the Cross resembleth, to wit, the bad and disordered manner of resembling. This first of all is indecent and absurd.

For although there be more natural aptness in the figure of the Cross to resemble the death of Christ, then in many other things, yet in regard of moral aptness, it is true that Brenz saith. A circle representeth Christ's death as well as a Cross; and what Peter Viret said: A Cow is as good a sign of it, as is this sign. Do not the Papists scorn at Brenz and at Viret, when they charge them with this absurdity? but there be in the world who pretend communion with these men, who fight notwithstanding for this Cowish and cirole-like sign which they condemned. Secondly, the manner of the Crosses resembling is doubtful, if not double, & untrue. Is it not an unworthy thing, our church should reach forth the hand to save a tradition flouting in the main of ambiguity? But now it is doubtful, whither our fashion of the Cross be the true one or no? with five extremities (the board being reckoned for one, which was in the middle for the crucified to rest his feet) yet because there were many forms of Crosses then, as there be of Gibbets now, the true Cross lieth in the dungeon of uncertainty, by the providence of the Lord, who would have brought it unto light, if he had meant to bring it to the honor to which we have advanced it. See what doubts and what varieties of conjectures the Papists themselves use to propose about this matter. Let the authorities of Jerome, Damascene, and of Isidore be considered, who make the Roman X the Cross which is crux decussata. An Andrew's Cross which also appearing on a time to Constantine, begot an opinion that the Cross appeared unto him. This form of the Cross receiveth great credit from Justinus Martyr: who applieth certain words of Plato to be spoken of Christ's his death upon a Cross of this decussate form, for so the latest and greatest Jesuits understand him. What shall be said to them; who make the Cross and iugum one? which by likelihood differed not much from the form of the gallouse which we now use. Minutius Falix compareth the Cross to a common ingum of an husbandman. Cùm erigitur iugum crucis signum est. Which Plutarch describeth in his Furca to be an ox yoke with a transuerse bar at top. Last of all, the Roman Y. which hath this transuerse bar removed, doth bear some beam, because it is the right Furca, which many think to be one with the cross, to which Minutius and Augustine seem to come near: the first resembling the form of the Cross manibus precantis porrectis, the other manibus Moysis inter precandum extensis, which make a forke and the top of a Roman Y. Is it not said that Cardinal Poole in his new Lambeth Gallerie did set up the letter Y. which is the arms of the Archbishopric for a token of the Cross? There being so great diversity, and from hence so great doubtfulness, were it not to be wished all were of our writers minds, who by reason of these uncertainties think the Cross a sign unworthy? The doctrine of our Church is, There is a lie made when there is made any Image of Christ, because his visage is unknown: so then the fashion of the Cross being as much unknown unto us we commit a lie in crossing. The Gnostickes would have no Images of Christ, but such as they were persuaded were drawn in Pilate's time, hence one of our writers twiteth the Papists, that whereas Irenaus called it heresy to carry about the true Image of Christ, yet they will worship a false Cross.

#Sect. 3. The Opposites saying, the second Commandment forbiddeth only material Images, are confuted. The Cross now used is not simply aerial.

NO great color can our opposites find, to clear the cross from these imputations: but that which they are able to get, that they varnish with all the industry and skill that may be. The first sort of them singe the old ludden: It is the material Image that this commandment doth forbid, of such an aerial figure as this, it taketh no knowledge, alas, what is it but the wagging of a finger? First, we insiste upon the letter of this Commandment temunah, signifieth any similitude whatsoever. As for Pesell though it be properly an Image material that is hewn, yet by a synechdoche it doth stand for all other forms & figures. Secondly, we stand upon the intent of this Commandment, which is to forbid all man's invention in the worship of God, Whereupon it becometh unlawful, not only to adore, but also to make any similitude in the service of God; any similitude (I say) of any sort or kind whatsoever, for so our Homilie biddeth me speak. Thirdly, we build upon the nature of an Image, whose essence is to represent that which an aerial sign can do as well as any, as the aerial smoke of air the pillar of fire that was aerial, the aerial image of Endor show, and the aerial transcunt actions of breaking, pouring, giving, taking, which are Symbolical in the Supper. When Chrysostom is alleged, Ego ex Cera fusilem picturam pietate plenam amaui: and when the little shrines of Diana, which Demetrius made are condemned, and the Images of Basilides although but little as which were borne about in the bosom, the matter permanent is not respected, or the form how little or how great it is, so it be a form at all? and as little & aerial as the sign of the Cross is, Master Hooker matcheth it with the brazen serpents picture, which he thinketh might have been lawful in the Temple. Whereas it is certain that not only every picture of an Idol is unlawful (by this Commandment) in God's service, but also quicquid Papistae rapiunt ad sacrum impietatum picturam & commendationem: whatsoever the Papists snatch to the painting & commendation of their impieties. Howbeit we lean not upon Master Hooker, mortivicina Paula, crucis signum pingebat in labijs. Ad omnem incessum manus pingat crucem, Paula near to death, painted the sign of the Cross in her lips. At every putting to of the hand let her make a Cross. Diuerse like testimonies might be brought out of the Fathers, that this sign is not so aerial, but that it may be termed a picture which is an Image in all plain sight. For Epiphanius calleth the picture of Anablatha, an an Image. Eusebius the pictures of Paul and of Christ, the Images of them. And what the Council of Eliberis decreeth against pictures in the Church, what Augustine speaketh against the adoring of pictures in walls, that do we apply against Images as well we may, none making any difference between them, but the Greek, and perchance the Lutheran Churches, which are condemned on all sides. Neither doth the aerinesse of the Cross hinder but that it is amongst the pictures of largest sense, which this Commandment doth condemn. Especially seeing in ancient times the picture aerial and material were yoked together as if they were one. Pingamus in lanuijs, at{que} in frontibus viuisicum signum (saith one) Sanctus Hilarion (saith another) pinxit in Sabulo tria signa crucis. Saint Hilarion painted in the sand three signs of the Cross, and thereby stayed the invndation of the sea. Now I would fain know what difference between a Cross pictured in the sand, and a Cross pictured in the childes forehead? hath not the one as lively colors as the other? what if it had not? Nos non in coloribus & tabulis honorem constituimus, We put not honor in colors and in tables (saith the Idolater). Again, Non colorum naturam adoro; ab sit sad inanimatā Characterem Christi, I worship not the natures of colors. God forbid, but the liueles Character of Christ. Fourthly, we plead proportion, for as every figurative Idol is forbidden in the first Commandment (as hath been shown) so every figurative Image here in the service of God. The Canon law holdeth a Sunday, an Image of the day wherein Christ rose, allow such a largnesse of sense, & is not the Cross an Image? The mind that is sanctified is an a Image of God, and is not a mind defiled then with fancies, an Image of that which doth defile it? This I speak because the cross worketh Images in the soul, which are unlawful by the Commandment: and we know, Quicquid efficit tale illud ipsum est magis tale, whatsoever maketh such, is it self, much more such. The Cross helpeth the inward imagination (saith Master Hooker. ) This imagination apprehendeth an Image of the thing conceived (saith the Philosopher.) This Image conceived is a true Image (saith the Lawyer.) When this Image is received from the apprehension of an outward Image (which the Lord hath not commanded) it is an Image Idolatrous, saith the Divine, to which our Opposites themselves consent. If the inward Image which is no way sensible which the Cross begetteth be an Image which is unlawful by this Commandment, then the outward sensible similitude which begetteth it, must be an Image much more unlawful, be it never so little a one; be it but a fingers wagging. For even sloth though never so [little] is without excuse, as also the inordinate wagging of the finger, though never so transeunt, it being our fingers duty to be a weapon unto righteousness; which how can it be, alwhile it is in pay with an Idol, doth such an hand shake it self from that which is evil, as it is enjoined to do.

#Sect. 4. The Opposites saying our Cross is no Image, because they intend no expression, are confuted.

NO want (then) of matter in the aerial sign of the Cross, but it may be an Image well. Now to the want of form objected. Our Cross (say our Opposites) is no Image, because our Church doth not intend any [expression] which must be warily understood. If this be the meaning: our Church meaneth not in making the Cross, to draw it from the Cross of Christ, though by the doctrine of our Opposites, the Cross is naturally such an expression, yet we stand rather upon this, that such expression is not needful. The Image which the Archbishop of Mainz set up in his Church, was an Image of the blessed Virgin, though the figure was drawn and expressed from the face of a certain harlot which he kept, and not from her own countenance. If this be the meaning, [our Church intendeth not in making the Cross to make an Image] then we reply two ways. First, our Church intendeth in crossing, that which is proper to that Image, which this Commandment doth forbid. For we use it to teach by resemblance outward; and to admonish by striking the senses, which is proper to an Image largely taken, by the letter of the word. Thou heardest a voice, thou sawest no Image, As who should say, cleave to his voice. What is added in the Church without his warrant, that esteem to be an Image which he detesteth, and abhorreth. And this have some of our Opposites taught us out of Abbacuck, who reproveth the Idol (as they conceive) not only for teaching ill, but also for teaching at all, because God alloweth no teacher but himself, nor mean of teaching, but his holy word and Sacrament. As for these Sacraments, they are Images in the eyes of all the learned, and were unlawful by this Commandment, like this teacher of ours (the Cross) had not God himself ordained them. Secondly, we use the Cross to signify and represent, which is an office proper to an Image even by our own confession, who hold an Image & a sign to be equivalent, even as (in deed) in largnes of sense they are but one. Whereas Theodosius and Valentinian removed quodcunque signum Salvatoris, we use to allege it against the Cross, and all other unlawful Images. The Heathen said of their Images, eius signum intueor quem adoro. And yet we condemn them amongst the Images here forbidden. The brazen serpent was like the cross, a sign and a figure of Christ, yet we allege the breaking of him for the abolishing of popish Images out of the Church. But it may be that our Opposites will deny, that they intend any such teaching, any such signifying, of Christ's death by any relation to the Cross on which he died. This if they do, then what should I say, but that it is a thing impossible (as it is in the ancient Apologue) to make a coat for the Moon. M ^r Hooker and the rest hitherto; the moderne Canon that is in force, many of our present Governors, do not only allow that our Cross should be a signifier and a teacher, but also commend him for his teaching and for his signifying. If there be any that since and so sudainly change like the Moon, it is time they take home to them selves that accusation of newfanglednes wherewith they have so long defamed us. Was it ever heard before that the Cross was ever used without relation to Christ's cross, without signification of his death? Our Cross is the Fathers Cross (we say) but little sign. For which of the Fathers ever used it not to this ende? to wit, they call it salutiferae Crucis signaculum. Patibuli salutaris picturam. Victoriosae Crucis insignitam memoriam. And that which is most common amongst them, Diuinae Crucis signum. And salutaris Christi passionis nota ad insignem. They think the Devils run away from it, because they see in it Trophaei dominici figuram, and so remember the overthrow given them on the Cross. Constantine, or the rest of the Fathers, would they have thought it an honor to the cross of Christ, to take the death of the Cross away that no malefactor might be honored with the death which Christ once died; had they not used it as a sign and representation of his death, and of the Cross whereon he died? unless it be for this relation, how can these speeches stand? Alocis suppliciorum fecit transitum ad frontes imperatorum, qui tantum honorem dedit poenis suis. Quid servat fidelibus suis. Quid servat fideli suo, qui talem honorem dedit supplicio suo? But this testimony putteth all out of doubt, signum Crucis praenotamus in front. Ex sua enim Cruce Christus crucis signum in frontibus omnes in se credentes, edocuit. Secondly, what though our Church did not intend in the sign of the Cross that is proper to an Image, were this anything, all while naturally it is an Image? all while the Papists repute it so? and it is such in common use? For we have this confession from the mouth even of an adversary him self, that things must be judged as they run in common use, and not as they are done in the special construction of some men's wits and understandings. Now in proper use that the sign of the Cross is a sign of Christ's Cross and of his death, this doeth witness▪ before he died it was ever execrable, since his death from the time that it hath been used, it hath been ever honorable. As for the Papist, his school doctrine runneth thus? The material Cross is potissima imago Crucis: the aerial veluti successiua Imago Crucis. And in his contention against us, he objecteth that the Crosses of our Banners them selves, are Images, although they are only in Civil use and not in use religious. As for the common use of the people, must they be enthralled now at last to a private intention of the Minister, which all our writers have so longe ago disclaimed in other things for A dungeon of vntertaintie? No, the very use of the Cross in Baptism, giveth warrant sufficient to think an intendment to signify Christ Jesus crucified, and the profession of him. For example.

The very painting, yea setting of a spear and a thorn in the Church near a Cross, is sufficient to make them representators; which other spears and thorns are not, which stand or grow without the Church. So, though there be nothing to enforce an intendment in civil Crosses, yet the very making of a Cross in a Sacrament, (the sign of the covenant) is sufficient to make it a signifier. To dippe one into a river abroad, argueth no intention to baptize, but in the Church, cognoscitur ex ipsa action, there is an intendment, So when a Carpenter layeth a cross beam in an house, or a Weaver a cross thread in a cloth, he argueth no intention in him to signify the death of Christ; whereas a minister in baptism [ex ipsa action signandi] bewrayeth sufficiently in the common estimate of all the the world, that he intendeth so much.

#Sect. 5. The opinion confuted, which not able to deny the Cross to be an Image, affirm Images to be lawful in case the Magistrate command them, &c. And the aerial Cross is worst of all Images.

THe most learned of our Opposites, perceiving how vain a cavil it is to deny the sign of the Cross to be an Image, strike up the forehead and grow bold to affirm that Images are lawfully nough in the Church in case the magistrate should command them. This, should it not add comfort to our souls, as it addeth credit to our cause? Stande we against trifles, who stand against Papism & Lutheranism too? Or stand we alone who have all on our side that from the beginning ever stood out, for the purity of God's; worship & the holiness of his house? We have with us the religious Jews, that to die would never so much as receive an Image into the Temple, though they were not bound to worship it. We have the religious Christians of the primitive Church; for whom when Adrian goeth about to build churches, he is told he must build them without all Images. We have the religious Concills of Eliberis & Constantinople the 7. which condemnde not only the worshipping but also suffering of any Images in the Church. We have the famous Emperors of Greece, who stood not only against the worshipping of Images, but also against the having of them in the Church. We have the Fathers; among whom Tertullian writeth, against the Images them selves, not only against the adoring of them. And Epiphanius teareth with his own hands, a picture found in the Church of Anablata, although it were not worshipped. We have the ancient Waldenses, who not only condemned the worshipping of Images, but also razed the Images them selves, and removed the Oil and the Priestly garments out of all religious houses. We have the ancient Thaborites in Boheme, who under Zizka pulled down Images, and utterly defaced them: and when they lighted upon any of the popish consecrated Oil, they greaced their shoes with it. We have the Confessions of the Protestant churches, against all having of Images in churches. We have the confessions even of many papists them selves, that the very having of Images in the church is flatly forbidden in the second commandment to the Jews, & not their adoring only. We have the confession, even of many of our Opposites, who as, they write against papists, that the adoring of Images, so against Lutherans, that the very having of them (in use religious) is unlawful by this law. We have the Protestants that have written of this argument; of whom, who is there almost that hath written, whom we have not? Last of all (which may close up all) we have on ourside our own law made by act of Parliament: which affirmeth that every similitude in the Church and in use religious, is a mere Idol, although it be not worshipped. And what can be here replied? that this is meant of those Images only that be dangerous? but the Homilie and the rest of our witnesses do therefore condemneall Images in the Church, because in the Church they cannot but be dangerous. They condemn them also because they are Idolothites, which they hold to be unlawful in the Church. They condemn them moreover, because this commandment forbiddeth not only the worshipping of Images, but also the very making of them for use religious. Where our Homilie presseth out of John [Babes, keep yourselves from Idols] which is interpreteth out of Tertullian, he saith not keep yourselves from Idolatry, as it were from the service and worshipping of them, but from the Images & Idols them selves, that is, from the very shape and likeness of them. Lastly, they condemn them because their place in the Church is honorable whereby they give countenance to popish Images, that are elsewhere adored. Now the burden of all these reasons light upon the aerial Cross, which in some respects is worse thē the material permanent Image of the Lutherans. First, we hold the Image of Christ more dangerous then any other, because of the excellency of his person, therefore the aerial Cross is worse then another Image, because of the opinion which is had of the excellency of Christ's Cross which it doeth represent.

Secondly, the Lutheran Image is only a looker on, having no such state among religious actions as the Cross aerial hath, which if it were nothing, then would not D. Fulk hereby excuse the cross that stood once in the Chapel of Q. Eliza. in that it had no use religious there. Thirdly, The Lutheran Image is [ ad solum ornatum ] and he standeth not solie many times, but in history, whereas the cross is used solemnly in baptism, as a sign ministered apart by it self, with a word annexed to the element, which is that placing it in sublimi, which in this matter is most vicious. But the Lutheran Image moveth more. This is that which Tostatus wrote long since, A Picture is more tolerable in the church then a grauon or carved statue, because corpulentiam nullam gerent minus est motiua, nec ita simplices decipi possunt: which though (caeteris paribus) it may be true, yet here it faileth, because the intelligible & comtemplatiue credit (which the sign of the cross hath gotten) striketh deeper, then the sensible corpulencie of a common image, and more deceiveth more sortes of men. I remember Bellarmine elsewhere proveth, that Images have been taken for the persons represented, because birds flew to Zeuxes grapes which he had painted taking them for grapes in deed. If there be any men that follow their sense like birds and beasts (as he insinuateth) they no doubt would be more moved with the corpulēcie of an Image. as for others who are wise, they are led by contemplation of the power and of the virtue which is conceived to be in the aerial Cross, witness these words: Qui imaginem adspicit non ex pictura & colorum tinctura similitudinem accipit, sed ad cōtemplationem primi exemplaris animum reducit. and he regardeth not the quantity, or the corpulencie of that he seeth, as in the Lord's supper he is moved as much with a little, as with a great loaf: even as Non est quantitas visibles in hoc astimanda my sterio, sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis. Howsoever it is better for us to walk in the royal way of this Law, and so avoid all Images, then to ramble in the wandering paths which have distracted the commoderators of all times, some of whom will have pictures but no images. some images, but not so many, some have no images but the Cross, which is now our Churches sin. So is the Cross proved an image; and because an Image not to be tolerated in the service of God.

#Sect. 6. The aerial Cross is a new sign directly against the entendment and rule of God's worship. The danger of retaining old popish Ceremonies.

FRom the letter of the law, come we to the intendment of it, which is the authorizing of the word to be the rule of all God's worship, which is wronged by all new devised signs, and by rites popish more ways then one. First, They hinder teaching, learning, and keeping of it. For whereas the word doth now teach clearly the Cross (with the rest) overcast (as it were) with a veil the brightness of it, witness the whole Church which saith: that a light in the day time to signify the Gospels light and a Cross to show Christ's victory by his crucifying, maketh the doctrine far more dark then if the word did shine by it self without them. And it is confessed the popish ceremonies were as leaves that did shadow the fruits of Baptism, whereas it is known that the Cross amongst the rest is a vine leaf of Memphis more hurtful then any, for that besides it casteth more shadow, it self is never cast nor fadeth no not when others not only are faded but also fallen, and that deservedly. For vmbra legis evanuit even in the judgment of a Pope; in the judgment of Protestants so vanished also, as that no shadow of any shaddowing rites and ceremonies ought now to remain. For whereas it is unfit as Pynitus wrote of old, that the Church should still immorari lacteis sermonibus et in puerili institution consenescere, the Cross and other popish ceremonies teach still with a fescue as the Jews were anciently taught, & keep the Church in hir infancy and weakness still. Upon this and the like reasons, when in the Latheran council new rites were thought on, rather cut off from the old (said Johannes Sarisburiensis ) that God's word may be kept the better. A fit counsel for this time, when scarce any thingh else is thought on, then the pillering up of ceremonies: which if they were cut of & gone, the word of God would flourish more and be far better kept. Secondly, the substance it self of doctrine standeth in danger of the Cross and popish ceremonies not well purged forth: what first impeacht the Gospels purity in the whole Church but a delight which the Fathers had in heaping up ceremonies? what first deformed the faith of this lande, but the rabblement of Roman rites, which Augustine the Monk brought in; amongst which the Cross was chief? What hath lamed the Luteran profession (lastly) with inclination unto popery, and with a vehement smatch thereof, but popish ceremonies retained in their Church? When Charles the 5. would have obtruded upon the Churches that were reformed, the ceremonies which they had left: these counterblastes were heard against him. The old popish ceremonies annexed to the doctrine of the Gospel, are an old ragged clout patched to a new garment. They are (as it were) an Incrustation both unlawful and unseemly. The retaining of them is the sweeping of the house for the ill spirit to reenter. yea, the opening of a window to a confusion Samariticall of the religion it self in the end. Indeed many ways do the ceremonies that have been popish, hurt the faith. First they are of themselves Cortices religions. so that, as good ceremonies spread the sap of true doctrine, in like manner ceremonies popish diffuse the verdure and the juice of superstition. Great advantage getteth Satan in this business by our security, which holdeth them for trifles: little considering that a little leaven is quickly able to infecte an whole lump. that paruus error in initio, fit maguns in fine, as one spake once of popish errors. And that which our Saxon brethren alleged against the trifles of the Adiaphorism, ex paruis sape magnarum momenta rerum pendent. and negligenda non sunt parua initia, ex quibus paulatim postea maiores fiunt accessiones.

Secondly, The establishing of popish ceremonies is oftentimes [Commenium politicum] to draw in the whole body it self: that which the Preachers of Hamberough saw when against the popish mixtures of the Interim, they thus protested: sunt ista Adiaphora nihil aliud quam semina Corruptela, & nervi papisticae superstitionis, & Cuniculi per quos aduersarij in nostras Ecclesias irrepere conantur, vt ease à fundamento evertant. The same saw (likewise) the Preachers of Saxony, Satan non contentus vno vulnere, longam texit telam, & ab his paruis initijs Ceremoniarum progressus, facit ad Corruptelas doctrinae. Thirdly, The establishing of popish ceremonies after the Gospel a long time preached, carrieth a show of inclination to popery, and of commoderation with it. By the first of which an hope is raised of restoring again the doctrine it self. By the latter an opinion engendered, the doctrine it self is not so ill. So that the censure here hath place, which once was leavied against the ceremonies retained in Germany, rerum illarum externarum conformatio, hoc est laruae Antichristianae assumptio nequaquam sine doctrinae violatione fieri potest, iàque ipsa experientia comprobauit. Fourthly, The retaining of popish ceremonies put men to their wits, to devise colors and excuses to paint and varnish them, whereby there is woeuen amplissimum adiaphoricum pallium, Covering all kinds of inclinations, concessions, yeeldinges, abiurgations, calumniations, lyinges, raylinges, and reprochinges. For ensample, the Adiaphorisine of Germany brought forth these Axioms to the corruption of manners. That to stand with the Magistrate in small matters (though pertaining to the truth) is contamacie. The commandment of the Magistrate doeth excuse the subject. Not to conform our selves to some popish ceremonies, is to offend the Papists. A Surplice is a trifle, and not to be stood on. No duty of confession is required in Adiaphoris. It brought forth also diverse Axioms to the corrupting of the judgment. That superstitious abuse doeth not bind to a removal. Popish ceremonies may serve for order, decency, comeliness. When any are offended by popish ceremonies retained in the Church, it is scandalum acceptum not datum. And these which seem more dangerous, Quacunque per se impia non sunt, ea ration circumstantiaram impia fieri non possunt. Semper perinde licet Ceremonijs vti. Licet veram Ecclesiam cum impia in omnibus Adiaphoris cōformarem. Adiaphororum & Ceremoniarum Ecclesiae finis & scopus est pax politica: most of which (if not all) the Cross speaking in his language at this day. What should we do, but stand up in the gap against him? and with those arguments refute these errors wherewith our Godly Brethren in Germany, fought against their Adiaphorism, which did disturb their Church? Fifthly, The retaining of popish ceremonies keepeth still on foot many popish principles. For show me the man that can uphold the Cross and Surplice, and the rest of the Ceremonies controversed, and not run him self a ground upon popish sandes to justify them? who now give forth, The Bishops when they talk with us Papists, play the Puritans; when they talk with the Puritans, then are they Papists; and those objections that are more ancient. There be many catholic things in the book written against Cartwright the Puritan. The common Protestant must fly to Catholic grounds and answers, when he dealeth against the Puritans. The Protestants cannot defend them selves against the Puritans, but by our grounds and answers. We have the ceremonies called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the scripture: and no mervayle, because the ceremonies bear up some doctrine, or beget some doctrine or other. When the Greek Church began to dissent from the Latin, left it not the Ceremonies of the Latin Church withal▪ When Roome first established a Church in Brittanie, did she not the same time require an observation of her Ceremonies too? When Jerome of Prague was sworn to the Church of Rome, was he not bound to observe the Ceremonies, as well as to believe their faith? In the Interim, was there not exacted a conformity unto ceremonies, and unto the doctrine both together? The reformed Churches, when they began to banish the whole dosse of popish doctrine, did they not at the same time exile and banish every dram of their ceremonies also? It cannot be (saith Cyprian ) that Novatus should keep the doctrine of the Church, if he break the discipline. He that is guilty in the ceremonies, is guilty also in the faith (saith the Council of Toledo. ) How do the Papists bewail an Antiquation of their ceremonies, as for causing a downfall of their religion it self? How do Protestants on the other side foresee a danger of our religion where popish ceremonies do remain? Vtinam vidissent (saith one) qua haec conseruanda censuerunt, euangelium ijs manentibus non satis esse firmum. Therefore we are by our leaders directed to hate, (as the doctrine) so also the rites of Rome. Yea (by name) we are willed to abolish the sign of the Cross, if we mean that the doctrine of Christ crucified, shall be thoroughly fixed and settled in our Church. These premisses considered, we may well assure our selves, that popish ceremonies retained amongst us, will rob in the end and riffle our faith. Away with them then, Nunquam securus cum the sauro, latro tenetur inclusus.

#Sect. 7. The Cross sinneth against this main principle of the word, he that addeth or taketh from it, &c. Popish Ceremonies worse then Jewish.

AS the sign of the Cross sinneth against the letter of this Commandment, and the rule of God's worship which it intendeth (which is the word,) so is transgresseth against a main authorament of it which is this, Thou shalt not add to it, nor take away from it. He that of old lifted an axe over an Altar to hew and frame it to his own liking, did pollute it: and can it be then without the polluting of the Sacrament, that the Cross is lift up over it, not only an axe that serveth to polish according to policy, but also such as hath been whet at the Philistines forge, nay bought or borrowed from them? It this to obey the commandment, Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God, as they do to theirs? Is this to fear the reproof, They set their thresholdes by my thresholdes, and their posts by my posts, and defile mine holy name? Lastly, Is this to reverence the inhibition, Thou shalt not call me Baali (that is) serve me in like manner as Baal is served withal? Here the patrons of the ceremonies controuersed divide the house, some taking no shame to borrow from Papists; others (for shame) standing on a denial that these ceremonies are borrowed from them. The former of these, how do they weaken their brethren's hands, and blunt their weapons against the Papists? For against the antiquity of their lights and incense with the like, the best plea that we have is this, that they are borrowed by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , From the Pagans and the Jews. The whole body of popish ceremonies, which Durand hath anatomized, we use to thrust through with this spit, He professeth that they are taken from the Jews. Whole Treatises and books have we written against their apish imitation of Jews, and Pagans in their feasts, in their Images, and other complements of their service. By name we renew the ancient censure against their holy water condemned of old, because it is [ ritus gentilium ] against their Images, because they are gentilis confuetudo, against their shaving, because the Priests of Isis used it against their lights, because at first they were set up to heathen God's, and not to wander from home, we censure the Christians that borrowed a Cross from the T. of Serapis. And this we do being thereto bound not only by the word of God, but also by the general practice of the Church throughout all ages. Indeed, I know not whether the Church hath not exceeded in her zeal, since it hath made it no less then heresy from time to time to use any rite of aliens as we may see in the Quartadecimani, for this only esteemed heretics, because they kept their feast of Easter upon the same day on which the Jews observed their Passover. And thus Jerome, Cerinthus & Ebion, propter hoc solum à Patribus ana. thematizati sunt, quod legis Ceremonias & Christi Evangelium miscuerunt, & sic noua confessi sunt vt vetera non amitterent. But it will be said, this was because of the merit and of the necessity which they put in the rites which they retained, & the ceremonies now controuersed, are not so urged. Of this shift we may be ashamed. A papist him self averring etiam lege Iudaica non cogente, it is heresy to use their rites in case of love or in case of charity, because vmbra legis is totally vanished; and the rites of the Jews are now [mortiferae] to him that useth them, let him use them which way he will. And the Eastern Churches observed not the fourtenth day, as the Quartadecimiani: they observed it as an ancient custom, but we do now observe the Cross: whom yet the Council of Nice condemned, because it became Christians to have nothing common with the Jews in their rites & observations. Now, where is a reason to make it more lawful to borrow from papists, then from the Jews? Is there not apparent reason we may less? For the Jews ceremonies were ordained of God, the Papists by the man of sin the Antichrist, and Jewish ceremonies renewed are but Christi sepulchra, When they be at worst, the Ceremonies of Papists even foetida stercora in the opiniō of our best Divines. Secondly, as this tenent weakeneth our own hands, so doeth it strengthen the hands of papists, who so reverence the grace and truth of the Gospel, as that withal they will retain veteres typos, figuras, & vmbras, for notes and for signs of the same. So Innocentius will have the Laws of Deutronomie still observed, adding a reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is secunda lex. While our writers protest against this vayling and shadowing of the Gospel's brightness, we in retaining of the Surplice do make good, confessed on all sides to be borrowed from the Jews. Gratian professeth we are to take pattern from the Jews. The gloss thereupon inferreth, possumus argumentari ab exemplis infidelium. This while our Writers do with all their power destroy, our imitation of the Papists worse then the Jews buildeth up again. The Rhemistes directly hold, we may take ceremonies frō the Jews. Our Writers set foot against them; these we by retaining popish ceremonies, fear not to supplant. Caesar Baronius readeth us this lesson, Consulto introductam videtur vt quae essent Gentilitiae superstitionis officia, eadē verbi Dei cultū sanctificata, in verae religions cultū impenderentur. Again, In multis gentiliū institutis contigit vt super stitionis corum vsus sacris ritibus expiatus, ac sacro sanctus reditus in Dei Ecclesiā laudabiliter introductus sit. Which while our best writers refute with reasoning, our doing the same in Cross and Surplice, approve with practice. Polydore Virgil deriveth the most of popish ceremonies from Jews and Pagans. Blondus taketh pride to blende the rites of new Rome popish, and old Rome Paganish. Which while our Writers with their pens make odious, our retaining of popish ceremonies make to be lawful. Thirdly, this conformity of ours with Papists in their rites, destroyeth that difference and separation which ought to be between the Church of God and aliens. Well, Melciades. No man must fast the Thursday or Sunday, vt inter iciunia Christianorum & Gentilium, & bareticorum vera & nō falsa discretio habeatur. For we may if we will learn from him, that to retain an alien rite in diverse use, is falsa discretio, that the separatiō is never true, till heretical ceremonies be cashiered. Here it is pleaded that Gideon sacrificed Baals Ox to God. That Joshua sanctified the goods of Jericho to the Lord, and Moses turned the Censors of Corah to plates for the Altar. To omit that the last were no goods of Idolaters at all, the former no goods of Idolaters in state Idolatrous, which maketh a main difference between them and the ceremonies controuersed, with many moe pleas which we might allege; we rest on that which one of our writers bringeth, There was a special warrant for these, and A special commandment, but none for Cross and Surplice. It is also objected, that God borrowed linen vestures from Egyptian Priests: that he ordained Tythes notwithstanding Hercules had his Tythes before, and appointed bread for his Sacrament, though Mythra had bread offered to him. That the Christians had their Agapae at communions, notwithstanding the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the heathen in the Temples of their Idols. That the primitive church had many things from the Jews. that we our selves retain at this day the Ring in marriage from the heathen, and Tythes from the Jews, and keep set fasts, though Montanus were the first that did set down set days for fasting. We answer: The ordayner of the most of these was God; of whom if any say he borrowed, he blasphemeth. as also he presumeth in his pride, that thinketh he hath the same power that God hath, to ordain the ceremonies of his service. Howbeit to particulars. The Priests of Egypt borrowed their linen from the Jews, as it is likely even as they did their circumcision. Mythra borrowed his bread frō God. To say the Agapae of the Christians were not an imitatiō of the Jews feasts after their sacrifices rather then of the Gentiles, and that they were not abolished when time of abolition came; or that Hercules (which is Joshua) was before Moses, to have his Tythes imitated by him, is ignorance or falsehood. To justify popish rites in use religious by customs of the primitive Church, by tithes & fasting days of our own at home, either tolerated for a time only, or continued by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and perverse imitation, or used only in civil matters and not religious, is inconsequent & absurd. Augustine (also) is wont to be cited, but he only alloweth to take from heretics, the things that be good. in such as Cross and Surplice are, he is with us, as shall be shown. Now, mention we only, that grand position which ever the Church of God allowed, Nihil dandum Idolo, nec sumendum ab Idolo. a rule so strictly and seriously kept in the primitive Church, as that they abhorred the very words and names them seiues, which did symbolize with aliens. This the Papists them selves confess: the word Priest and Sacrifice was not wont to be used (say they) till the days of Irenaeus, For fear of Co-incidence with the Jews. And wherefore feared they this Co-incidence? least they should seem (saith Bellarmine ) to renew their rites, or to confirm them. For the very same cause another pronounceth, Haereticorum etiam vocabula timenda sunt. And our Rhemistes, We shall keep the faith of our Fathers, if we keep their very words themselves. But avoid we the words of heretics although they seem to have no harm in them. Is there a sinful seeming in the use of the names of heretical rites, and doeth the very use of their names renew & confirm them; And will Papists forbear the very words themselves of heretics, though they do not so much as seem to have hurt: and is there no sin for us to renew and confirm the rites of papists, when we not only use their names honorably, but also use their rites themselves, yea command them; yea revenge them, and that not only when they have a seeming of hurt, but also do effect much harm? Oh take we heed, it is an heavy thing to expect even papists themselves, to rise up in judgment against us. Howbeit, what say we to the names of Idols, Apollo, Dionysius, Mercurius, Phebe, with the like, which the Christians retained even in their baptism (as some of our Opposites would persuade us) against the letter of the old law? Thou shalt not take up their names within thy lips. In deed some think they have found out herein a great piece of matter against us, if yet it be against us, and not rather against the Lord, & against his servant Moses. The Christians were called by their old names which were taken from Idols. True, as the street in Athens is called Mors street out of a necessity, for who had power to change and alter them? And mark not our Opposites this instance is wholly civil? No say they, for even in baptism these names of Idols were imposed on them. A Papist himself will not say so, who thinketh there were Godfathers in the Primatiue Church; and that men's names were given unto them in the administration of Baptism. For he thinketh their old Idolatrous names were changed when they were made Christians. As for us, who know there were no Godfathers at the first, as now there be, nor no new names given in Baptism, this objection might very well have been omitted. The truth is, when an Infant was baptized, the order was very strictly kept, which is fathered upon the Council of Nice, Nefidelis nomina gentilium filijs suis imponant. And we may even hence perceive, that the parents set the name at home: as also by another ensample. Parentes mei vocarunt me Tharacum. And also by the common order registered thus, The Minister was wont at the Church door (not in Baptism) to ask the name of him that was to be Baptized (mark, ask and inquire) and not to give the name himself. As for the aged, there was ordinarily no meddling of their names at Baptism: but the order was to come before hand, at what time they were called [competentes] and give their names, to wit, their old ones which were written down in a Register; which order continued long after Christ, as many undoubted witnesses show. And that these names were totally civil, it appeareth by this, that men did change their names when they would. As one called Tharacus at the first, when he entereth into war, he giveth himself the new name of Victor. And the civil z Law it self permitted this change. In which often the Christians of Africa changed their old Idolatrous names into such as present occasion did require: As these names show [habet Deum] he hath God, [spes in Deo] hope in God, [been seruatus] graciously saved: which, are they not the very same which our Opposites think fantastical, when now they are imitated?

#Sect. 8. The Opposites that affirm their Ceremonies to come from the primitive Church immediately, and not from popery, are confused.

THe seconde side of our Opposites, will not deny but that it is a thing unseemly for the Church (the spouse of Christ) to attire hir self with the cast apparel of the harlot of Rome, therefore they turn to another angle, and stoutly deny that these ceremonies come from thence Dic colorem? why the parties from whom we receive them (immediately) are the Fathers of the moderne Church; the parties from whom we receive them mediately, are the fathers of the primative Church. Concerning the former, Our reverend Fathers impose these rites, and from their hands we take them. But they, from whom? why (think ye) they intend any imitation of the papists? no, they impose them out of policy (as rites of order) for the Churches good. First, this answer of a good intend is merely cauillous. any sinner may use it and never be cast, unless he confess against himself. And the papist himself doth use it, who pleadeth the very same intention that we do, to wit, that he doth use his franckencense, not as it is Jewish, but as commanded by the Church; and his holy water, not as it is a rite of the heathen, but as an ordinance of the Churches. Secondly, There have ben (and are) many unlawful imitations which want intention to follow and imitate unlawfully thorough the same carnal wisdom; which when it seeth an example of it self in aliens, it begetteth in men's hearts an Image thereof. For example, The Jubilee of the Jews and the sight thereof, hath begotten a lively Image of it self in the popish Jubilee. Howbeit without intention, since they deny this Jubilee is drawn or borrowed of the Jews, as peremptorily as we deny that these ceremonies controuersed are borrowed from the Papists. And the consecrating of Mars his sword among the heathens, with the rest of their God's relics, hath begotten in Rome (howbeit perchance without any intent to imitate a reverencing of Joseph's breeches; Thomas his shoes; Martins bootes; Georges sword: and all other relics of their Saints. The Pagan gods painted the beasts which they did love, and the sight thereof: as Isis standing in her Temple with her Goose, Venus with her Dove, Apollo Smynthius with his Mouse, Minerva with her Dragon; and the Garlands and bunches of grapes wherewith Bacchus was painted, hath begotten (though perchance without intent of imitation) the like reverence in Rome to the beasts of their saints, so that in their Churches Wendoline is set forth with sheep. Antony with a Pigge, Martin with his Geese, Eustachius with his Dogs and Deere, Gertrude with her Mice, George with his Horse and Dragon, and Urban is painted (successor of Bacchus ) with his wine-pots and with his grapes. Thirdly, our Church may easily be euicted of an intention to imitate the Papists, if not explicit, yet implicit by the open marks thereof which drop down in our ways. The first of these is emulation. For can we deny we use the Cross to the end: we may not seem to lack any good and ancient ceremonies which are in Rome? now this sufficeth to euict an intended borrowing of them, as doth appear by these examples. Julian is said to borrow from the Christians when he did like unto them: to wit, adorn his Idols Temples, Secundum Christianorum traditionem, and appointed all rites of credit, ex aequo respondentes, least his Religion should seem to lack any good order, which the Christian religion had. And the heretics are said to borrow from the Christians when in like manner, ad imitationem Ecclesiae, Psalmos componebant & canebant, not to seem less devout then they. The Pope is said to borrow from the Emperor in like sort a ceremony of state, When he dight himself a triple crown, not to seem inferior to him. For he did it to vi • that triple crown which the Emperor had. The first of silver at Aquisgrane. The second of Iron, at Millane. The third of gold which he received at Rome, as may partly appear by this. We never read of the Popes Tiara, till after the broils of Gregory the seventh, which was one of the first that openly did set up himself above his Master. To come near home: Chrysostom is said to borrow from the Arians, their singing Psalms in the streets as they went to Church, singulari pietatis specie, when least the people should be carried away with this hypocritical show of pieti, he did similia instituere. Additis ardentibus facibus & argenteis quibusdam crucibus. The second mark of intent to borrow, is conformity with Papists to win them, even as Paul indented an imitation of Jewish rites when he shaved his head at Cenchrea, and in ceremonies that were indifferent, He became all things to all men, to the intent he might save some. So the Christians intended, (and that faultely as we censure it) to imitate one of the heathenish rites, when instead of Serapis T. they set up a Cross to win them. How can we deny we borrow from Rome, when we profess and bear before us, we take their Surplice and their Cross into our Churches to win them the sooner, and to give contentment to them? For this is not only the common plea for the ceremonies now adays, but even at first, when as Master Hooker and Master Rogers misliked the likeness of our service with the Mass-book. It was (I say) even then pleaded that this conformity was needful to fit and please the Papists. The third mark of intent, is commutation. For as goods found in a man's house industriously changed into his own mark, is evident sufficient he purposely stole them, so our careful changing of the Cross into our own livery euicteth plainly that we have taken it from the Papists. For we are hereby in the case of the papists, whose processions are confessed to be borrowed from the heathens, in that they have changed them into Christian Litanies, the heathenish banner which was the Labarum or the Caducius Mercurij being chopped into a Cross. Did not the popish Bishops borrow their Poderis from heathen priests, when they changed it from woollen to silk? Did not Pope Eutichianus take a ceremony from the heathens, when condescending to the infirmity of men converted from their Gentilism he abolished not their feasts in the church, but altered and changed them into refreshings for the poor. Did not the Archbishop of Turone intend an imitation when he was instant to have the sacrifices and the feasts of the 11 last days of February changed in festum aepularum beati Petri ad tollendum abusum et popull super stitionem male instituti in Christianismo, vt qui adhuc faperet suum ethnicismum? Seeing in all these changes our writers do accuse the papists for an unlawful imitation, how can we be excused our selves who have changed our Cross and Surplice from their Idolatrous Cross and Surplice in manner like unto the same end? The fourth mark is substitution. For as the brother in Moses law intended a continuance of the name of the dead whē he substituted in his place another to bear it, so it will be interpreted we intend to continue the name of the popish Cross and Surplice in case they were dead (which were to be wished) in that we raise other Crosses and other Surplices to be (as it were) their heirs. By which means it will come to pass, that their names will never out in the gates of the people. Surcease we then this substitution, or cease we to charge the papists for the like: as their substituting of Mary in the place of Venus, and their substituting of other saints to fill up the room of heathen God's and Goddesses. for example: their Theodulus is the Christian Aeolus. Their Agata the Christian Vesta. their Nicholas & Christopher the Castor et Pollux of the Christians, their Urban the new Bacchus. their Katherine, a late Minerva: say our writers, because they are sought to, as having power over winds, over fire, over fea-tempests, over wine and drinking meetings, and over learning: even as the heathen sought to the former out of an opinion they had the government of the same things. But do we seek to Cross and Surplice? In profession we do not, in practice there be too many that do, who are incoraged by our substitutiō of cross and Surplice in holy use, for whose sakes we should avoid even all show, although but in parte, of their abhominable substitution. And our substitution is it not in a manner the very same which we mislike in others? as when in the room of the pagan feasts, which they made for their dead, the Christians substituted feasts that were like at the Martyrs memorials, as when Gregory, Thaumatourgus permisit memorias Martyrum ne vulgus imperitum propter voluptates in error simulacrorum permanerent, as when feasts were substituted to Peter, Paul, Thomas, Sergius in Roome of the ancient heatenish solemnities? as when Sixtus substituted the feast of Saint Peter ad vincula in place of Augustus feast, the first of Auguste: for his victory against Antonius & Cleopatra? as when Boniface the fourth turned the pagan Pantheon at Rome which was dedicated to all their God's, to the Church of all Saints, whose feast was in Maye at first, the same time that the heathenish feast was kept, we worthily, condemn all these substitutions, because they [ Change ] not [chase] away the old superstition, even as our Cross and Surplice do not. Far better Zechariah when he saw some celebrate the Kalends of January and to feast and dance Paganorum more; illico omnia haec amputauimus (saith he) because that paganisine (and so papisme) will repullulare, unless all the customs of it be hewn down at the root. The fifth mark and last of all; of an intended receiving from papists is retention of some likeness in name, in use, in office. Even the papist himself will confess an imitatiō where there is a likeness, as because there are like rites in Rome to them in Egypt, therefore one saith, plera{que}, &c. many things translated from the Egyptians which have crept into our religion: as the linen garments, the turnings and windings at the Altar: the pomp of sacrificing, the soundes of Musique: with many like. Our writers take part with Vigilantius against Jerome: therein they take part with us. For what was his quarrel but this, that in the relics of Martyrs, Christians came prope ritum gentilium: as all the quarrel which we have now against the rites that are controuersed, is this, because they come prope ritum Antichristi, to near the rites of Antichrist. The Image of Ambrose & Sebastian at Millaine we say are heathenish imitations. Wherefore? because the latter is not multum absimilis, to Homers Apollo casting his deadly arrows into the campe of the Gretians, the former set forth with Miter, Staff, and Whippe is haud absimilis to Jupiter stator. Papists revelling at Christmas, is acknowledged to be heathenish. Wherefore? Quia similia à nostris comittuntur, to those sportes which Pagans made about the fourteenth of the Calende of January. The Parentalia which the Papists perform to the dead, are confessed to come from Pagans. Wherefore? because Non dissimiliter à nostris fit. The Oscilla which Papists offer with other Imagunculae of their members cured and healed, yea of their sheep and horses recovered, are professed to be an imitation, non Religions modo, verum superstitionis etiam, of the Pagans. Wherefore? because they are Consimilia like to those expiations which the Pagans were wont to offer for their lives and for their healths in the Chapel of Dis their God. The herses covered with a black cloth, and with a white Cross are said to be borrowed from the Pagans. Wherefore? because Simile Quid is here committed to the Lectisterina of the Pagans. Last of all, the Amulets & fascinations of the Pagans are said to be imitated by the Papists, when by the Cross and a piece of Scripture written, they go about to effect strange things. In all these ensamples it is a borrowing, when the rites come near, when they are not unlike; when they are done according to some like manner; and are used but in like fashion. And no marvel, since he that retaineth but a rite that is like, sinneth against the inhibition of this Commandment, which to cut of from all borrowing of heretics, condemneth all likeness with them. What (then) shall we say to a same-nes, in name, in office, in time and place, and other mo circumstances? we take advantage against the Papist, because their feriae retain the name of heathenish feasts: and it is thought there is a strong symbolizing between Rome Paganish, and Rome Christian in the sportes of their Carnispriuium because some foosteppe do remain of old name, time, place: and that à principio mutationis facta, à gentilium superstitione adritus Christianos. Let then the Cross and the rest of the ceremonies wipe their mouths and say they are not borrowed, since all the printes of retention are marked in them not only for [likeness] but also for [same-nes.] The same name, the same time, the same place religious: yea and in some sort the same office also. When we are forbidden to put an Ass and an Ox under one yoke, we are forbidden to put men of diverse professions into one office (saith the Canon of the Law.) Are not our professions not only diverse but also contrary? Alas (then) what doth any popish rite in our service, especially meddling with the office of the Sacrament it self?

#Sect. 10. The second defense of the Cross confuted: that is, we receive it not as superstitiouslie abused by the papists, but as first used by the Fathers.

WE have done with the first pretence, that we receive the Cross from the Fathers of our own Church, and not from the Papists, and have undone it. The second followeth: We receive them not from the Papists but from the Fathers of the primitive Church; which doeth tota pellucere even of it self. First, The Fathers can be no vizard for a rite whereof the Pagans, Jews, or heretics were the fathers and first begetters. It was the fault of one Alexander, that he sange the Psalms of Valentinus: It is ours now that we use his Cross. I call it his, because he was the q first that used this figure. the very first that made account of it, as appeareth by Irenaeus, who after the scriptures which this heretic wrested to the Crosses commendation, addeth this: these scriptures he applied à se male inventis. But this is spoken of one of aeones which he termeth Crux, I know it well. but pleaseth it our Opposites to know as well wherefor he termed him Crux? to wit as he termed this aeon oros to show a separating power in him because it is the nature of a bound to separate. so in like manner he termed him Crux, to show a purging power in him, because he held the Cross a purger of man's sin, like the fan in Matthew, which purgeth the Wheat in the Lord's flower from chaff spiritual. And that he was drawn into this opiniō by the same means that papists are drawn, by a supposed dedicating of it in the blood of Christ, it may in parte appear by that which he saith elsewhere, to wit, that his aeon was without a [figure] until Christ by his death upon the Cross, did give him one. Let this be marked, for it is known that Valentinus did use [ Figures ] by them to express all the doctrine of his aeones: and it appeareth by the text of Irenaeus that he did use the [Figure] of the Cross to express this one of them: and till now we never read of any that used the figure of the Cross before him, or made any account thereof. therefore he it is (even Valentinus ) for ought we know, that first brought it into request and reckoning. And who (then) will suffer us to say we borrow it from the Fathers and not from him? The Greek Church say, they imitate the Apostles in their abstinence from their blood and strangled. No, (say the very papists them selves) they are the Jews ye imitate. The Papists say, they imitate the Fathers in their processions. No (say we) they are the Gretians whom ye imitate, in their carrying about their Idols. The same would father their life Monastical upon the Fathers, Paulus Thaebeus, Antonius, Basel, Augustine, and Jerome. but we hold they borrow it from the heretics Isaiah, because they were the first that used it. So when they would derive their lights from the Fathers, we will not suffer them, but stand out that they borrowed them from the Pagans, who first devised them for their God's. See we not (then) that to say we follow the Fathers in the Cross, ( Valentinus the heretic, being the first deviser of it) we are forced to fly like Eutropius, to the very same sanctuary, which we have denied, and shut up to others? Secondly, The Fathers can be no vizard for a ceremony which have been abused since. What then? Popery having abused the Cross, and the Cross being none of God's ordinances, (which abuse cannot defile) it is now the Popish Cross and not the Fathers: so is it from papists that we borrow it and not from them. Doeth not adultery make the member of Christ, the member of an harlot? Therefore though the Cross were a member of the Fathers before, yet now it is a member of the harlot of Rome: seeing since their days he hath been found coupled with her in spiritual fornication. And when a righteous man falleth, all his righteousness is forgotten, and in the sin that he hath committed, in that he dieth. What (then) though the Cross in the days of the Fathers did some good deeds, they are now to be forgotten, and in the Idolatry which he hath committed, he is to die. Doth not every ceremony unite a man to the religion to which it belongeth much more (then) is the Cross united to Antichrist, whom he serveth, whereby he forfeiteth all the communion which erst he had, or since might have with Christians? As for the Lord he will suffer naught come near him, but that which standeth in first purity: as it must be a Virgin which his Priests must marry; and a beast that never bore yoke, which his priest must offer. So that I marvel men can imagine he can endure a Cross or Surplice in his house which have bebe deflowered by the man of sin; and which have drawn in the yoke of Antichrist? Howbeit, I marvel more, men are not afraid to back such defiled ceremonies even with mere mockage. For what is it less to say, We use the Cross, not as abused by the Papists, but as first used by the Fathers. This were as if the Greek Church should elude the abrogation of the Jewish ceremonies with this cavil: we abstain from blood, and strangled not as it is a Levitical ordinance, but as Noah and the Fathers abstained from it before that Law was given. This were as if one should have eluded the inhibition of a grove with this cavil: I set up a grove not to imitate late Idolaters, but such a grove do I set up as Abraham and Isaac used, and the rest of the ancient Fathers. This were (also) as if one should elude the abdication of a priest falling into Idolatry (the equity whereof Cyprian continueth still, who barreth such as have sacrificed unto Idols forever, from the priestly function,) with this cavil: I admit him to be a Minister, not as now of late he hath been defiled, but as at the first he was holy to the Lord thorough the oil of consecration that was upon him. This were as if one should have eluded the Law that abolisheth all the monuments of Idolatry with this cavil: I use not the brazen serpent as lately it hath been abused, but I restore him to the use, for which Moses first reserved him. This were, as if a wise man now should wear a party coloured coat (not as it is a fools coat, but as it was the Fathers coat be Christ's coming) as if a servant should be coucred before his Master, not as covering is a late sign of preeminence, but as of old it was a sign of subjection, and take the right hand of him, because of old that was the inferious place. Suppose one should preach at Paul's Cross, that the Bishops are [Tyranni] to their brethren, Fures to the Church, Sophistae to the Truth: would they accept this excuse of their own. I use these words, as of old they signified a ruler, a servant, a student of wisdom? No, no more then Stephen Gardener would admit it, because all men know that words and actions must be interpreted, used, received, according to their moderne use, and not as they have been of old.

#Sect. 11. Its no good defense of the Cross to say we have it from our Fathers not from the papists, because the Fathers also abused both, the simple use of it and as its mixed with oil.

THirdly, what though from the Fathers we take this sign? this helpeth not till the Fathers use be justified, which will never be. Whether we regard their simple use of it, or mixed with oil. For that the oil was imprinted in, or with the form of the Cross, is it out of controversy? Episcopus trino crucis signaculo vnctionem inchoat. Adcrucis effigiem sanctissimum fundit Oleum. Signum crucis cum odor Chrismatis praenotamus in front. Pectus codem perungitur Oleo, vt signo sancta crucis diabolo claudatur ingressus. Vere crux nostra vncta est. Omnia chrismata sacerdotalis Ministerij figura crucis perficiuntur. Neither can it be said this grew up of late, for the Oil is as ancient as the Cross, and whence is the Unction called signation, consignation, obsignation, (with the like) but from the Cross? But there is a Canon that forbiddeth the Priest to anoint the forehead of the Baptized, who yet did sign it with the Cross. Be it the Cross was made in Baptism on the forehead without the Oil, never was the Oil applied either in Baptism, or otherwhere without the Cross. Therefore hath he no wrong, though we sue him as partner with all the horrible superstitions of the Oil; which if he be he that readeth the Pathers writings, shall meet indeed with such a Chaos as will make him afraid (I say not to fall into it) but even to behold it. Who can brook the efficacy that Tertullian giveth it? Caro vngitur vt anima consecretur. Caro signatur vt anima muniatur. The necessity which Cyprian gave it. For as he saith, Vngi necesse est baptizatum. So hath he elsewhere. Baptizati signo dominico consummantur. Or (lastly) the effectual necessity, and necessary effectiuenesse which Cornelius ascribeth to it, when he saith: Novatus was not well Baptized because Reliqua consecutus non est, quorum oportebat participem fieri secundum Ecclesiae Canonem, ne{que} signatus est ab Episcopo. And what say we to Dionisius, who saith of this, Vnctuous consignation maxim dininos efficit? To Simeon Thessalonicenscis: who saith that it is necessary that everyone be signed therewith, Vt Baptismum diuinissimum habeat & consummatum? Thus Nazianzen. In Baptismo firmissimo auxilio tibi caueris animam & corpus vnctione & spiritu consignans. Which last words show in what sense the Cross is called by the Fathers, spiritual signaculum, (to wit) because he bringeth the spirit. For which one place may serve our turn. Sequitur spiritual signaculum, quia post fontem superest vt perfectio fiat quando ad inuocationem sacerdotis spiritus sanctus infunditur. And in the opinion of the Fathers, the water of Baptism is nothing worth without the Cross. In the opinion of the Fathers the Cross is insigne Regni, & clauis Paradisi. In the opinion of the Fathers the Cross is the terror of the devil, and an impregnable wall against him: So that they used the Cross themselves when they were in any danger. Last of all, in the opinion of the Fathers the Cross is so necessary, as that he is to be made coming and going, sitting and standing; even ( ad omnem incessum ) at every stop, and ad omnem actum, in every action that we do. One Papist is found, who saith, the Fathers meant not of the outward sign, but of the thing signified, which is Christ's death. It is well, that we have this confession from him that the Fathers cannot be justified in case they mean the outward sign, which they mean undoubtedly, or • else our Opposites do us great wrong, who object the Fathers against us in the outward ceremony of the Cross: as also our writers be deceived, who spare not to censure the Fathers of Superstition in their use of it. I reckon not here Master Hooker in the number, who draweth M. Goulart (as it were) by the hair to clear the Fathers from the Superstition of the Cross which he doth not; save in comparison of the popish merit, and enchantment, which afterward crept in. As for the operative power which they placed in the Oylie Cross he flatly condemneth them. Whereupon there followeth in him that Apology of ours now which is taken up of Augustine, non putandum est aliquid verum esse quia Patres it a senserint, sed si per authors Canonicos quod à veritate non abhorreat persuadere possint. What that in rites (though anciently used by the Fathers) his doctrine is that they ought to be abolished when they gather any leese of Superstition; and that amongst these he nameth this very sign of the Cross, which must now be left (saith he) not only because our times must be distinguished from theirs, (which Pamelius undiscreetly doth confound) but also because of the gross Idolatries and Superstitions to which since it hath been abused. And thus far of the sin of our borrowing.

#Sect. 12. The Cross is condemned as a superstitious ceremony: as superstitious will-worship, and for a superstitious Ceremony, and will-worship Sacramental.

HAuing examined our borrowing, come we to the sign which we have borrowed, where that every man may see what a great catch we have gotten in him, we araigne him first for a Superstitious ceremony. Secondly, for a Superstitious will-worship. Lastly, for a Superstitious ceremony and will-worship Sacramental. Concerning the first. The duties of a right ceremony (respecting the Church) require an aptness to edify the same through decency and order. Neither hath the Church any authority to pass this bound, as within which God hath intrencht all human power, to which our writers do consent. Now how can our ceremonies in question be such, the rule holding whereon the Divines of Germany stood against the ceremonies then enforced. The ceremonies which have been abused to Superstition, can never serve for order or comeliness: Because they will breed a confusion between us and the Papists, and bring in Superstition, and in themselves are as indecent for the holy spouse of Christ, as an harlots weed is for a grave Matrone? What that these ceremonies that have been abused this way are vain and light, and hated of good men? What that the introducing of them disturb the Churches that have discontinued them? and set the churches that do nourish them in their bosoms in a combustion of endless contentions? What that they stain many worthy Ministers either with the slander of disobedience (if they refuse them) or with the blot of inconstancy, if they use them? This very last (though it seem little) is great unseemliness. For the laws which are made for decency, prevent revealing of all nakedness in those that ascend to the Altar of the Lord; and forbid the shaving away of any ornament of their head, who are to stand in the presence of God, whereas these ceremonies yielded unto, against former sincerity, both discover the weakness of present inconstancy, and shave away (as it were) the glory of former faithfulness; and that in and from them that should be nearest to the Lord. Secondly, a right ceremony respecteth even the aliens themselves, & not the church of God only; where his duty is to separate and make distinction. For we must make the Lord our pattern, whose very civil ceremonies thenselves serve to this use, not only religious. Do the heathens eat almost none but swine's flesh after they have sacrificed of the kind? the people of God must of all other abhor this meat. Do the heathens make their pates balde, shave the locks of their beards, and make cuttings in their flesh? The people of God must of all other abhor this guise. Do the heathens usually reserve portions of the Sacrifices? the people of God must burn with fire that is left, rather then leave any one piece of the Paschal Lamb unto the next morning. And whereas he forbiddeth them to marry with the Canaanite; whereas he bandeth them in eternal hatred against the Amalechite; whereas he barreth them to admit the Moabite and the Ammonite to any preferment in his congregation: whereas he inhibith them to go back to Egypt the same way they came thence: what doth he else, but even in civil laws and all, draw (nay drag as it were) his Church from all co-partnership with aliens in their customs? Other laws there are of his, whose use doth serve to signify so much, as when he forbiddeth the wearing of diverse stuff together in one garment, the ploughing with an Ox and an Ass together in one yoke, the mingling of diverse seeds together in one field, of diverse beasts together in one foale. The abstinence which he prescribed from unclean meats, what noted it else but holy pureness from all communion with unclean Gentiles? he is abhominable that weareth apparel like the woman's, For that herein he confoundeth Sexes, especially when he doth it religiously (for who will not think this worse, then when a woman of Lacedaemon doth it in private.) How then is it likely we shall be excused, that wear the apparel of the harlot of Rome, and use the sign of her Cross, which is her chief cognifance, when ariseth a confusion even of Sectes. Lastly, consider the religious ceremonies themselves which were shown in the pattern upon the Mount. Were they not set as an [ headge ] to make a pertition between the Church and the aliens? Were they not ordained for a diverse badge to sequester God's people from all other nations? Nay, were they not squared to be even a [ partition wall ] between the Church and the forreners that were without? Last of all, were they not displayed for a flag of defiance to make his people an abomination to all other nations, & all other nations an abhominatiō unto them. For instance take the Temple it self (the warehouse and wardrop of all the rest) which standeth Westward contrary to the Eastward Temples of the heathen; and that (which papists themselves can observe) ad arcendam Idololatriam. Whom shall we follow if we follow not this course? Not the Fathers. For Epiphanius in the end of his book (saith Bellarmine ) which he wrote against heresies, rehearseth the ceremonies of the Church for certain notes whereby the church is discerned from sects of all sortes. Not the late Writers. For they condemn every peregrina Ceremonia: every ritus peregrinus: especially such as came in pilgrimage from popery to us, as coming out of the very stews. What that the light of this truth shineth in the hearts of papists themselves? The use of ceremonies rightly constituted and ordained (say they) is to distinguish the members of the Catholic Church, from the heretics that be without. Neither would the Christians have used the sign of the Cross (say they) had it not been proper unto Christians and such as did discern them; yea make Pagans angry with them. Whē the heretics called Monophysitae made the sign of the Cross with one finger, Innocētius (to be unlike unto them) decreed this sign should be made with two fingers. I conclude with the Lutherans: who notwithstanding their manifold mixtures, when they contemplate the general duty of a ceremony, are forced to give witness to us, We must not bear so much as a vizard of Rome (say they) in external conformation of ceremonies. No not so much as a show of Rome in ceremonijs sieve omnibus sieve aliquibus, sieve maximis sieve minimis. But we must avoid (say they) every minutissimus Character of popery: insomuch that they much abhorred that positiō of the Adiaphorists touching the ceremonies which in their time were controuersed. Quo propius Papae, eo melius. Let Master Bucer shut up all. Omnia quae sunt Antichristi Romani habentur abhominationi, saltem quo ad externam speciem, vtinam & reipsa poenitus. And thus sinneth the sign of the Cross as it is a wrong ceremony.

#Sect. 13. The Cross is a Will-woship, proved by three reasons.

IF we proceed in the examining of him, we shall find further that he is a will worship, as he is used among the Papists, in which regard it is not lawful for God's Church to use him in his worship at all. The first reason is, because it maketh the Church participant with the popish superstition through defect of Godly zeal against their superstitious worships. For ensample, The Greek Church abstaineth from blood and strangled, not placing in it any worship of God's, but to obey the Apostles rule for order and for edification. Doth this excuse that Church? no, as long as the Jews use it for a worship they are held to Judaize. From the Church of Greece, pass we over to Afric, there the Abyssini use circumcision; not as a worship of God like the Jews, but as a ceremony which is decent for that imitation which is of Christ in it. For which also they are baptized every Epiphany the day on which Christ was baptized as they suppose. Many such rites they have which they use as ceremonies only, not as worships like the Jews, as these words show. Non quod ad salutem spectare credimus; again, non ob circumcisionem gloriamur, nec caeteris Christianis nos putamus ob id meliores aut Deo acceptiores, &c. From Ethiopia pass we to Germany, where shall we excuse the Adiaphoristes, because they impose not their Pseudo Adiophora, as worships of God, but only for ceremonies of edification? I hope we will rather join with those constant brethren of ours, who thus replied: Ordinem in Ecclesia decentem constituendum esse clamant, quasi vero antea sine ordine in summa confusion ecclesiae nostrae vixissent. Indeed, have the Churches no order or comeliness that want the Cross and Surplice? Nay, have they not more a great deal then ours, who are out of hope ever to come near the reverend gravity of their rites, or the chaste modesty of their assemblies? We use not the Cross as a worship (say we) as the Papists do use it. By this our excuse we justify Papists in burning incense before Images, and before Crosses to the defeating of that argument which our writers make hence against them. You commit Idolatry to Crosses and Images, because you burn incense to them as the Jews did to the brazen serpent. Have they any color to answer this, save this of ours, we use not the incense as a worship Divine, or as a Sacrifice as the Jews did? which we hold unworthy the answering, all while the ceremony is the same? If it be no sufficient difference to use the Jews incense not as a divine worship like them, how can it suffice for us to say, we use the same Cross that Papists use, but not as a worship as they use it? How the Papists use their incense before the Cross, I leave in the midst: their making of the Cross with incense is thus described: Crucem cum incenso facere est Christi passionem patriostendere, & ipsum pro nobis interpellare. What difference here between them and us? For we use to sign with the Cross to signify the merit of Christ's death, they the Cross (and incense withal) to signify his intercession by the merit of the same? Secondly, though we use not the sign of the Cross as a worship, yet our using it in God's worship, giveth occasion of will-worship in other men. We may not think but this commandment forbiddeth all occasions as well as other commandments do, and that in the Cross it self, which because it is an occasion of superstition, it is to be done away in the judgment of our writers. Is it sufficient the leaven be not put in the bread of the Paschal supper, or that it be not eaten with it as a part of that worship? No, it is further required that it be not suffered so much as in the basest room of the house. The equity hereof hath feared our Divines from suffering ceremonies less hurtful, least in the end they give occasion of a worship superstitious. As they remove the receiving of the communion with the mouth, least in the end it should breed an opinion of holiness in the consecrate hands of the Priests. And the reserving of the communion Bread and Wine to avoid the occasion which it giveth of thinking them holy, extra vsum, or changed in substance. The same Divines of ours condemn even omnem speciem of the popish superstition. (even as Augustine long since affirmed: The man is thrown down into the dungeon of the Devil, that observeth a Jewish ceremony in deed or in show ) so much the more, because in this land, Omnia sunt superstitione referta. This last clause willeth us to be more wary of show, when the people are ready to take hurt by it. I say [take hurt] even as our Communion Book forbiddeth the wafer cake to take away all superstition which any might [ take ] mark (take in it) in which wafer cake when was there put the one half of that superstition which is now in the Cross? Nay the censure is yet more strict, If we love Christ Jesus, Nihil prorsus loci apud nos inuenient eaeres omnes, verba & gestus in quibus vel appareat esse aliquid tantis impietatibus affine aut ad vllam rapiatur (quanquam improbe & abs{que} data causa) harum suarum impietatum commendationem. Howbeit, in Cross and Surplice there is even occasion given: first by that show of a will-worship which is greater in them then of a Mass in the Priests going up to the Communion table to say the prayers before the Offertorie, which notwithstanding we have censured for [occasioning]. and through that representing of a popish worship, which is as great in Cross and Surplice, as in the elevation of the bread for ostension to the people which is condemned for a prouoker: And last of all, by the appointing of them to be used in holy use, which is adjudged offensive even as the appointing of a fast on a Sunday, it being the same day as the Manichees do appoint, savoreth too much of approbation. But there be instances fit for this purpose even in the very Cross it self. Our Divines could not abide those nigrae cruculae which were in King Edwards communion book to direct the Minister how to make Crosses on the bread and on the wine. It is forbidden by the popish Canons, that any pilgrims should burn a Cross in their flesh. Wherefore? It seemeth because they were to meet at Jerusalem with the Aethyophians & the Jacobites with others, who in their baptism burn someone, some two, some tree crosses with an hot iron in the forheades, in the cheeks, and above the noses of their children. By proportion from hence we may not figure the Cross in baptism because they figure it as they burn it not, because the superstitous burn it. Let the Germane Divines shut up all: who alleged against the Surplice and other ceremonies thē enforced, that all shadow of show was to be shunned with popely.

#Sect. 14. The holiness and necessity of the Cross, cause it to smell very ranckely of superstition.

NOw this participation and this occasioning is much advanced by the rank savor which the Cross hath amongst us, both of that holiness and of that necessity which are propet to a worship. What faults find we in a popish ceremony, but only these two when it is made a worship by them. But now a rank savor of these two cleaveth as closely to the Cross unto this hour, as did the leap rosie of Gehazi unto his seed. Begin we with the former, first how near are we to the yoke of fellowship with them in the efficient of the Crosses holiness. For when they recite what doth make an Image holy, and a Cross, they name antiquity, and the authority of holy persons that have used it, and the presence of God that hath wrought miracles by it, & the benediction of the church. In which who heareth not the very sound of our home pulpits? which declaim before the people how ancient the sign of the Cross is: How much reckoning the Fathers made of it? What miracles God hath wrought by it? & how devoutly our Church hath sanctified it to be a mean whereby to dedicate our seed to him that died upon the tree thereof? But they say that the Cross hath power against Satan ex diuina institution. and that it is holy by way of impetration, for that God heareth his Church when she doth bless it. But what if in the former by divine institution they mean naught else but Apostolical use? then so many of our Opposites concur with them, as hold the Cross to be Apostolical. As for impetration, are we not told of God's assistance to our Church, as if the Cross must needs be good because the Church ordaineth it? But our Church doth not ordain the Cross in so vile manner as the popish. As if there were not too great an agreement between the Armenians and the Romans, because the Armenians do consecrate the Cross in so vile manner as that the papists themselves detest it? Secondly, how near are we to the right hand of fellowship with them in the condition of the Crosses holiness, seeing they well near agree with us in what we speak against it, we with them in what they speak for it. We put no holiness in the Cross (say our Opposites) f so Harding: we put no holiness in the Surplice: so the Council of Trent. you must put no virtue nor holiness in Images. So the Jesuit, There is no holiness in any dead thing, but only in relation to some what, Cui sanctitas primario conuenit. As when Jacob saith, This place is holy, he meaneth no sunctitie in the earth, but a relative holiness in respect of God's presence who appeared there. On the other side, in relation to Christ and his death, and to God's & the Churches ordinance the Cross is holy saith the papiste. So do our Opposites call the Cross [ an holy Cross] and the holy sign of Christ. Now I would fain know, what relation there is in it which by the Principles of our Religion can advaunce it to this style? Is relation to our Churches ordinance? but our religion teacheth, It is superstition to consecrate anything to be holy in God's service. Yea no less superstition then that which God plagued in Abihu, when he brought into the Tabernacle holy fire of his own choosing. Is relation to Christ's death? but our religion teacheth that to call a Cross holy in this respect is plainly to cross the holy Apostle who calleth it cursed. Indeed a Jesuit himself will yield that as the Cross is considered to be but an instrument of the pain of Christ his death, that so he ought to be as detestable unto us, as the gibbet is to a child which was the instrument of his Fathers infamous hanging. And what other consideration will our religion allow in the Cross save this alone? For whereas the Papists count him holy, as an instrument of our redemption which was merited by the pain to which the Cross did put him, we totally deny that he may be considered so. Affirming that the Cross was only used for pain and curse that of the redemption which came by this curse and pain he was no instrument at all, upon no other ground save this continue we still the ancient argument of the Petrobrusiani the cross ought to be as odious unto us as is the Gallouse to a child on which his Father hanged. Thirdly, we come too near the society of the Papists in the act of the Crosses holiness: which is so vile, that it is a fault even a louse off to follow them. For a man to Cross himself, it is with them, actus Christianisimus: and the tradition of the Cross is with them perfecta the very Queen of all other traditions. So that Wicklife is thought to be out of his wits in that he thinketh there may be sin committed in so holly an act as Crossing. And when great Alphonsus chose the greatest duty in the burying of a stranger, he set his servants to dignity the grave to dress the corpe and shroude it reserving the holiest part to himself which was to make an holy Cross to set at his head, and is commended for his holiness in so doing. Howbeit I doubt whither late Inquisitors will commend him, who have taken an new course to keep the Cross in request for holiness; to wit, the dead must rather want the protection of his holiness, then his holiness be so debased, as to be set by a graves sides upon the ground. For the same cause must women kick the sanctification of the Cross at Rome. For as women were of old debarred from access into the Temple of Simon Stellites, and by an old Canon from all ingress in Secretarium: so least the Cross should be esteemed no more then ordinary for his holiness, no woman must come into his Church but once a year, only the twentieth of May which is the dedication day. No small preferment I tell you to be admitted into the presence of the Cross, and to taste of his bounty; and to have the top of his holy scepter reached forth unto you. The more is it to be lamented that even in the midst of our own Church some should arise, to renew a great part of this his credit. For as if Wideforde, Alphonsus, Prieras and the Crosses Priests at Rome had a nest of birds amongst us lately floush and now flown, we make more ado about a Cross then about any duty else: as if it were Actus Christianissimus, and preaching must be turned out rather then it be dispossessed so much as of a babies face; yea deeds of mercy themselves must pack, I say not to the dead but to the living; and not to women alone, but to men also, yea to Jesus Christ himself; not only in his members, but even in his Ministers. And although we hold the Cross can preserve from sin in the very [instant] of the temptation, yet are we contented to deprive our brethren of it, for we may not use common crossing, least unhappily the sign should grow into contempt And what other course can be taken for the holy things of God themselves? For no way sooner can there be procured a reverence to the holy name of God then by forbearing it in common talk: to his Oil then by forbearing it in common use, to the fat or blood of his sacrifice, then by forbearing them in common meat. And I pray you what great difference between separating of meats from common hands to make them holy which the Pharisees did, and this separating of a Cross from common fingers to make it seem holier in the eyes of the people.

#Sect. 15. The Opposites first reply answered: which is, that the law commands not the Cross as an holy worship like the Papists.

FOure things are here replied. First, that the law commandeth it not as an holy worship like the Papists; which helpeth not, unless one of our pillars fail us, who hath these words, Also he denieth that they attribute the virtue to the sign without relation to the merit of Christ's passion. Whereas M. Calsh. speaketh not of such shifts as crafty Lawyers can make for their excuse, but of the opinion of the ignorant people, who have thought without any further relations that the sign of the cross was an holy, blessed and whole something. The pretence then of the law (not commanding it as holy) is but a [shist] neither is it to be regarded what use the Law alloweth, alwhile the use which doth follow of the Law is awry in the people. The second excuse denieth the people's abuse herein, which maketh our time like to the fourth age of the Church. Then the relics of Martyrs were covered velamine pracioso, and thereupon too highly reverenced. Vigilantius was grieved as at the reverence it self, so at this Velamen which was illecebra ad Idololatriam, as well he might, the scripture condemning the latae maculae wherewith the high places were interstinclae, and the versi colores vestes wherewith the Idols were operta for that they provoked to spiritual fornication, even as in the adultery bodily all enticements are forbidden, as Quid est (saith one) in capite feminae Corona quam formae laena, quam conflatio illecebrae? It pleaseth Jerome then to gainstand Vigilantius defending this illecebra, and denying such abuse to follow as was objected. How truly an indifferent man showeth, who living in the same time confesseth that diverse by occasion hereof, parentalia mortibus sues sacrificabunt. Like standeth the case of the controversy about popish relics now. The Law and the holy use they have amongst us (as a precious covering breedeth in the many to high an opinion of holiness in them, & of whole popery to which they belong. Hereupon we are grieved at them, desiring the removal of this illecebra from them, we feel herein the resistance of diverse Jerome's in our Church, whose chief argument is a denial of the abuses which we object. Our plea is just, these Jerome's having no experience of these abuses, as living either in contemplation (it may be at some University) or being otherwise busied (as they who live in Palaces) are not to be heard against those who like Vigilantius and Gaudentius see them daily with our eyes, hear them with our ears, yea (in a manner) feel them palpable with our hands. Is it not common to sewe red Crosses under the shrewdes of the dead over right the heart? to lay white Crosses upon the bear, let the Minister forbid the same with never so great vehemency? to make courtesy down to the ground, while the Minister is making of it on the forehead of the child? or to kiss the hand or bend the body towards it? Lastly to set it over the door to hallow the whole house? It beginneth also to appear openly in the bosoms and breasts of many, whence Jerome himself once threw it out. I omit to stir this sink any further. In the time of Gregory the thirteenth, Richard Atkins Englishman catched at the host, as it was carried in the street at Rome, to tear it down: but missing, he was judged by the people to have catched at the holiness of it, whereby he escaped. The like devotion remaining in them at this day when they see he Law command us to scrape a Cross in the childes forehead that is Baptized, will they not imagine we even scratch (not catch only) after the holiness of this sign? The third excuse is, that if the Cross be so abused the way is to remedy the abuse, the Crosses honor being preserved notwithstanding. This galopeth apace towards that of Bellarmine, Non quia pauci nimium cultum praestant, ideo omnis cultus abolendus, and towards that which Sadolet once replied to Erasmus, wishing the removal of certain pictures, because of the abuse which followed of them, seeing it was only nimium quid quod in ijs subaccusari posse videatur opinionibus studijs{que} populi non est obsistendum. Our writers stand for a removal to remedy this [nimium quid] and so by consequent turn Cross and Surplice out of door for the opinion of too great holiness that is had of them. Suppose this opinion be denied in the people, no color at all to deny it also in the Papist, for whose sake we are to leave them; by the example of our Lord: who therefore refused to conform to the ceremony of washing hands because he saw the Pharisees put an holiness in it. This is that which an whole Church saith, semper illi ritus abijciendi sunt, quibus assuunt aduersarij opiniones falsas, ne confirmentur vitiosi cultus. The fourth excuse is, That ancient Laws have provided for the holy esteem of the Cross, and punished the contrary contempt thereof. Constantine to honor the Cross, forbad malefactors should be crucified. Not to honor the Cross, say I, but to honor Christ. The words of the story going thus: Least any in their deserved punishments should be equalled unto Christ. The like Law made by Honorius showeth the like; who forbad the Jews to burn any Cross, or any other sign of Christ in contempt of him. p Julian is abhorred for tearing the Cross from the Imperial standard. The Templars detested for spitting on the Cross. John the twelfth, condemned in a Synod at Rome, because he used not to Cross himself, and all deseruedlie, because it was out of a most wicked despite of Christ and in profanes that they did it. But God have rewarded them that have reverenced the Crosses holiness? As Tiberius by name, who found a mass of great treasure under a Cross, when in devotion he took him up that he might not be trod upon. But the history telleth us it was his former alms to the poor that was rewarded in this treasure. I give instance of the like in them that use the sign of the Cross as little as we our selves do wish; I mean the Protestants of Beziers in France, who as they were digging the foundation of a Church, found a table of silver in time of extremity when they wanted pay for their soldiers: But it was the Cross that kept Tiberius his treasure. And it was an Image with a brazen head in Apulia, having this written about it: Calendis Maij sole oriente aureum caput habebo, that kept an huge mass of treasure for a long season. Robertus Guiscardi ransacking the country, was he that discovered it in the midst of a thicket; but it was a Saracen by the help of the Devil that found out the meaning of the inscription to be this: that in the Calends of May, at Sun rising the shadow of the Images head where it lighted on the ground, should have great treasure of gold underneath it. But to return to our purpose, when will our Reverend Fathers return to their old invectives against the holiness of crossing? Our children to the doctrine of their Fathers which is that the Cross must be removed as the serpent was broken before the opinion of his holiness will out of the flesh, both Fathers and children to the ancient zeal which hath been shown from time to time against the holy things of aliens? When the Sheep and the Oxen were holy in Egypt, the people of God must put them to such use in sacrifice as will debase them. No use (then) of the holy Cross and Surplice is now pleasing to the Lord, but that which most will deseyze them of this honorable estimation; And such is the first smatch of popish leaven in Cross and Surplice, to wit, such a twange of holiness as is proper to a worship.

#Sect. 16. The second pretence for defense of the Cross, is necessity.

THe second is another property which also doth pertain to a worship, and that is [Necessity] Here the Papist reckoneth the Cross not only among such traditions as are necessary to salvation, but also among such as are principal partes of faith. It being so, we are much in fault to dwell so near them as we do, there being almost no pretence which their necessity admitteth not as well as ours; no blame which our necessity incurreth not as well as theirs. Touching the first, what are we able to say for our selves more then this, that we command it in Baptism not [tanquam necessarium] but oblige the conscience in respect of the Magistrates commandment only, not in respect of the rite it self. As though the Papists command it otherwise? Seeing in baptism they confess it is not necessary perse, it must be confessed they command it there in the very same manner that we command it; as also all the rest of their rites. Thus Aquinas, statuta Ecclesiae sunt de his quae non per se sunt de necessitate salutis, sed solum ex institution Ecclesia. Neither fish nor flesh of it self doeth defile (say the Rhemistes ) but a breach of the Churches precept defileth. They who hold the single life of Ministers to be indifferent, describe the necessity of it in such terms of not essentialiter sed ex statuto Ecclesia. accidentaliter, of not absolute ration ordinis, sed ex statuto Ecclesiae. of not absolutely loquendo & seclusis legibus Ecclesiasticis: as that a Protestant him self cannot devise better to show that the Cross is not necessary of it self, but as authority doeth command it. Is not the Cross à Satramentale? And how command they their Sacramentalia, but as we now the Cross? not ex necessitate Sacramenti, sed ex necessitate praecepti: not ex necessitate Sacramenti, but ex necessitate ministantis Sacramētum. Last of all, not ex necessitate faciendi, but ex necessitate facientis only. And what the very Cross itself, Quaedam etsi ex se, &c. some things there are which although they be not necessary of them selves, yet after they be commanded, they be so necessary as that if purposely they be omitted, men grievously sin. of which sort is the sign of the Cross in consecrating the water, &c. We have the Cross then made necessary in popery no otherwse then we our selves do make it necessary, & yet our writers bend them selves against the necessity of it, even after this manner introduced. So did our Savior stand out against the necessity of washing hands, though pressed upon him by virtue of the Elders commandment, and of the order of the Church: When Peter conformed to the Jews ceremonies, he did it consuetudine solemnitatis, non necessitate salutis, and yet he did ill. And wherefore ill? because though he did not [predicare] that they were necessary, yet his using of them did [ simulare ] a necessity in them. which also was so much the more faulty because there were many who in error did [putare] that is, hold them to be necessary. All while (then) papists and simple men hold the Cross to be necessary as other worships of God are, it is no sufficient excuse, we do not predicare & teach a necessity in him, our using of him doeth (simulare) so much, and breed such error in other men. One example more: They that kept the Passover like the Jews pari ration cum Iudaeis condemnantur, though they pretend a sublimior sensus in their observation, because they did pedibus proterere their diverse manner of observing by that bellum grauissimum, which they raised against their brethren about the same. Hence any may collect, that our diverse manner of crossing, saveth us not from being condemned with the Papists, all while we make them so necessary, as to make war upon our brethren about them.

#Sect. 17. We can hardly accuse the Papists of any abuse of the Cross, because we abuse it almost as much as they.

WE have proved the Papists may plead as good a manner in their necessity of the Cross as we well near in ours. Now proceed we to show, we can scarcely accuse them of any evil in their manner, but we have it in our own. What was said of old, non sunt Massilienses insipientes, eadem tamen faciunt quae insipientes, hath fit place here. Our Opposites are not Papists, yet do they many things touching the necessity of Cross and Surplice that Papists do, which we could wish were otherwise. First they wrest the Law against us, which if it be such as they pretend, we could wish it were only a Canon to direct, yea such a Canon as our forefathers were contented withal in the days of King Edward, when they left crossing to men's own discretions. Quantum adgenu flectionem, & consignationem signo crucis, eleuationem manuum, tunsionem pectoris, & semiles gestus, liberum erit cui{que} sequi suam sententiam. What binding laws were there made about ceremonies in the primitive Church, whose ancient liberty we may wish for by the authority of Augustine, who waild the burthensomnesse of human ceremonies in his time. Even Agrippa, a Papist can cry out against the fetters and chains of ceremonies which were not at first when the Church was free. As for our own writers they are bold against the Papists to appeal to the liberty of the ancient Church, when no binding laws were made about eating or fasting. That which is in different, vnicui{que} in sua voluntate dimissum est, saith Jerome. Let then our Reverend Fathers suffer us to make that request to them, which a Papist thought fit to make even to a Pope himself. Quod si Adiaphorum sit, cur not liceat vtro{que} vti ijs qui velint? Nam Adiaphororum ea natura est, vt eorum vsus & intermissio nemini prodesse, nemini etiam obesse debeat: sed hanc illi Adiaphoriam aliter interpretantur, nam & dicunt quod volunt & interpretationes afferunt quales volunt. Dicunt Adiaphora esse quod de ijs litigandum non sit, sed quemcun{que} moribus suae Ecclesiae vti debere. He that well considereth these words, will see, though the cross were indifferent, yet that the same course which is taken with us, and the same interpretations used which the Papists take and use; yea that some things also are said and done, which the more moderate sort of Papists think to be more then needs. Finally, we desire our Opposites to remember that the sign of the Cross hath been [ ritus liber ] even from the beginning [like to the praying towards the East] which our Fathers were so far to exact with necessity, as that they have by Law abolished it for that conformity which it doth bear with Papists. A second thing which is done in the urging of the Cross, like to that which Papists do, is the exaction of a [fidcs interna] unto it, by subscribing that it is well ordained. This, hath it not too great a smatch of that which Bellarmine affirmeth of rites. Necessarium est ad salutem credere, eos been esse institutos, & eos non contemnere? Out writers blot our the former [credere eos been esse institutos] which cannot be received but on Bellarmine's ground, which is, that the Church in ordaining ceremonies cannot err; and leave contempt to be in the inner man, the only thing that is unlawful. And as this is done by them, because there is no infallible truth in the Church, for faith to rest on, so also because there is no absolute power in man, in things ritual to [ Oblige ] by itself and necessarily, for these things because they are human, they only oblige humanitus so long as no injury is done to the truth of God, to piety, to charity, to simplicity, and to Christian liberty. What is here spoken of our liberty not to be injured, hath this meaning. Whereas Philip Melanchthon in the hurrey of Germanies Adiaphorism, was wont to say, seruitus aliqua in cermonijs ferenda est. That the rest of the religion will have understood of the outward mā only in body and goods, not of the conscience which is not to be enthralled to any rite by man commanded further then with grife to tolerate what is amiss. If it be further in England exacted, not only vt tolleremus, sed etiam vt Chirographo tanquam recta comprobemus (saith one) there remaineth nothing else but that de innocencia nostra testati, et omnia remedia intimore Domini experti, manifestae violentiae cedamus.

#Sect. 18. The third abuse of the confuted: which is, that the Cross is urged of necessity without omission, even as with the Papists.

THe third thing which the urging of the Cross doth, like that of the Papists is the exacting of a necessary use without the least omission. This is it not the very same with the Council of Trent, To omit any rite in baptism which is ancient, and which the Church commandeth upon any cause or pretence whatsoever, is a damnable sin. This considered we have little cause to make many words of a diverse manner in the necessity of the Cross. Peter Martyr, was not ignorant of this manner, who yet affirmeth of the English ceremonies, that quoad aliter facere non liceat, they were grievous and burdensome. D. Pilkington was after B. of Duresme, the manner of the English necessity was not unknown to him, yet he writeth that it destroyed Christian liberty: for that; liberty turned into necessity, is liberty no longer. But the Apostle (say our Opposites) the 15. act. 28 called the things [necessary] which they commanded being of themselves but things in different. Necessary (indeed) but how? not necessary as now the Cross is necessary whether he edify or be scandalous, do good or destroy: but necessary secundum quid, so far forth as then they served for edification and no further, witness Paul's practice in the very next chapter. For though the Council had forbidden circumcision, yet doth he break their decree, and boldly circumciseth Timothy because he saw it was the fittest course to edify. Wot ye then, what is rightly concluded hence? That the Apostles themselves cannot absolutely command in things indifferent. That things of themselves free become [ necessary] to be used when they edify, to be disused when they edify not, so that if the Magistrate be displeased for our forbearance of the ceremonies, it is but scandalum acceptum. in him we forbear, to edify, and this is a necessary duty to which we are bound. Indeed unless we do this, how can we walk circumspectly without offense, especially in the creekes of Idolatry, of which Tertullian inter hos scopulos & sinus inter haec vada & freta Idololatriae velificata spiritu Dei fides nauigat tuta si cauta, secura si at • onita. The fourth thing which the urging of the Cross doth like that of the papist is compulsion through threat of heavy punishment, and punishing out right not only the obstinate and malicious and the contemner who only are punishable by the law, but everyone who shall omit it howsoever. Ought not our godly Governors to forgo their commodity, and spare their authority in so general a perturbation of infinite consciences, as the Apostle giveth commandment, & example, Num vero ista tami sunt vt propterea oporteat tam multorum consciencias perturbari? Peter compelled to the Jewish ceremonies exemplo only, and we see how Paul withstandeth him. When Victor compelled to a conformity in Easter, how doth Irenaeus take him up, upon this ground: That the observation of such things ought to be free? Charles the great compelled to a conformity to the service book of Rome, but how dishonorable was it to him? for he did it, Cumminis & supplicijs, saith the story. Alphonsus the sixth K. of Spain compelled to the same book of Roman rites, and how grievous grew he, and how burthensome to the people? who cried out, Quo volunt Reges, vadunt leges: The laws must sing, as will the King. Bishop Ridley enforced the Surplice upon M. Hooper, to the great regret of his conscience, and of this rigor repented himself a little before the day of his death. Certain Princes of Germany to please Charles the Emperor, imposed the Surplice with other rites upon the Ministers of their several territories, and are all condemned for this, That they caused to sigh the spirit of God in the hearts of good men.

#Sect. 19. The pressing of the Cross confirms popish principles. The urging of the Cross, establish a popish necessity, ex consequenti.

FIftly, though our governors be not popish, yet by their pressing of the Cross, they confirm the popish principle, ritus Sacramentorum debent esse perpetui: against which our writers use to build up a contrary doctrine in Ritibus, ne accedat perpetua obseruatio. Sixthly, though the urging of the Cross and the rest of the ceremonies do not establish a popish necessity [ex professo] yet ex consequenti it confirmeth it, both with the Papist abroad, and the simple at home. Paul doth reprove Peter, wherefore? because by his conforming to the Jews ceremonies he confirmed by his ensample that necessity which was held of them. The trin-immersion is a rite more ancient then the Cross, yet when it grew necessary in the opinion of heretics, even Gregory himself doth abolish it, a man devoted otherwise to much to ceremonies: whom, how many of our writers cite to prove it a duty to abolish all rites which are held necessary by the Papists? And a whole Church hath said, when there is a necessity placed in a ceremony, we are by ensample to show the contrary. Yea our Divines consent, that when ceremonies are so strictly and precisely urged, that trouble doth arise about them, that then a man is bound to forbear, to give notice by his ensample against the necessity which might be conceived in thē. Say not here, no necessity can be conceived in the ceremonies controuersed, because the authority that doth urge them, doth openly profess the contrary. One of the Crosses proctors telleth us: in actions of this kind we are more to respect what the greatest part of men is commonly prove to conceive, then what some few men's wits may devise in construction of their particular meaning. Now what the people are prone to conceive is evident, Vulgi persuasio. &c. The persuasion of the vulgar people maketh the rites devised by men, to be as necessary to the integrity and efficacy of the Sacraments, as those which God himself hath ordained. What two is put to this persuasion by the practice of authority, is (indeed) more evident then can be expressed. For when they shall see them so necessarily pressed, as that the most respected preachers shall be utterly cast away before their eyes (themselves and theirs) for not relishing this necessity: how can it be but they must conceive that the men who bring this wrack do hold them necessary in their judgments? Look not for large discourses about this point, never were men able in the abuse of Images to allege more then known experience, which hath been always held sufficient, adducit Caluinus experientiam qua docet in cultu Imaginum superstitionem & errorem irrepsisse. Dici non potest quanta Idololatria apud rudem populum alatur per Imagines. Manifestius hoc est quam vt verbis explicari possit. Who ever denied the o sufficiency of this evidence? In the abuses (therefore) of these ceremonies, our experience doeth suffice; neither will any reasonable man expect more of us in that which dici non potest, which cannot verbis explicari: Neither can teaching to the contrary help. If in part it could yet is not that sufficient, as hath been shown elsewhere already, to which these testimonies for a surcharge may be added. Thus one of an whole Church, Vtile est in huiusmodi Adiaphoris etiam exemplo libertatem oslendere. Th •• an whole Church of a private man, Cùm hanc de cultibus opinionem, &c. When the adversaries take up an opinion of worship then all men must know it is a good deed to cry out against the same; and by the breaking of such ceremonies to show example whereby the godly may learn what they are to think of them. So Eusebius writeth of Attalus commanded from heaven to command Alcibiades using only bread and salt, that he should feed on common meats, Ne alijs errorem offunderet. Last of all, thus one of the Ministers who is to teach the contrary. Nec est, &c. It is nothing that the Adiaphoristes say, that they have taken order that the people should be taught the right use of the ceremonies; for such ceremonies ought to be appointed which by their goodness may help the preaching of the word; & not such as the word must daily have need to correct and chasten. The Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification, and not the Sermons only. But if in other Churches example be needful, then in ours much more where the people can tell what our Churches tenent is, but by the Preachers. Of which, some beat continually upon a necessity to keep and observe them: and some roundly and boldly affirm, that they are worships. For proof hereof, what need I go further then to an University Acte, where before a confluence and concourse of people out of all parts of the kingdom, A Doctor incipient in Divinity publisheth these verses.

#Sect. 20. The Cross as the Opposites, use it, is proved to be Sacramental.

AS upon former examination we have found the sign of the Cross to be a ceremony and a worship superstitious, so if now we proceed in examining, we shall find him faulty herein also that he is Sacramental. What should an Hagar do in the house, that hath so long not only crowed against her Mistress, but also crowded into her place? For first the Fathers called the sign of the Cross a Sacrament, yea such a Sacrament as the holy water & holy bread are, which also were signed with the cross & sanctified by it. Now the holy water hath such an efficacy (saith one) Quae certe nisi in Sacramentis esse videri non possit, so that maxim omnium videtur habere propriā rationem Sacramenti hoc illustris ceremonia. As for the holy bread wont to be given to the catechised when others did receive the Communiō, it was no less then standing instead of the Sacrament unto thē, therefore it was termed e • logia & vicarius cōmunionis. What that the cross with this bread ministered was thought to sanctify like a sacrament, as these words of August, show, Catechuminos secundū quendā modum per signū Christi puto sanctificari? Howbeit the sign of the cross stayed not her ambition here: she meant to catch the sadle in self before she had done, that which in Baptism she quickly attained, and with little ado, Our writers telling us that the Fathers who set her on cock horse, made more of her then of the water it self of Baptism. The same gave power unto the Cross to perfect Baptism, and to confer the spirit of God unto the Baptized. As for the former, chewe a little upon these speeches, it may be they will tell thy taste how unsavory the Fathers are in the matter of the Cross. With the sign of the Cross it is that the body of our Lord is consecrated, and the Fonte of Baptism sanctified. With the sign of the Cross is the wave of Baptism consecrated. By the sign of the Cross is the Lord's body consecrated: the Fonte of Baptism sanctified, and all things whatsoever are made holy, they are made holy with the sign of the Lord's Cross. We glory in the Cross of the Lord, whose virtue worketh throughout all Sacraments: without which sign nothing else is holy, nor any other consecration that cometh to effect. With the sign of the Cross is the Fonte of regeneration made holy: and to speak fully all Sacraments are perfected by his virtue. Unless the sign of the Cross be applied to the foreheads of the believers, or to the water whereby they are regenerated, or to the Sacrifice whereby they are fed, none of these are rightly performed. The water of salvation is not the water of salvation, unless being consecrate in Christ's name, it be signed with his Cross. Again, The water is good for no use of future health without the preaching of the Lord's Cross. But when it is consecrated with the mystery of the saving Cross, then it is tempered to the use of a spiritual washing and of a saving cap. As therefore Moses threw the wood into the waters of Marah and made them sweet, so the Priest sends the preaching of the Lord's Cross into this font, and the water thereof is made sweet unto grace. Secondly, come we from the Fathers to the Papists, who plainly teach, that though it be not a Sacrament, yet is it like a Sacrament, for which cause they call it a Sacramentale. Now there are two things (saith Bellarmine ) wanting of a Sacrament. First, he conferreth no justifying grace [ex opere operato.] Secondly, he worketh not infallibiliter. But some say (and Cardinal Bellarmine seaneth that way) that the ceremonies which the Church doth bless (of which I trust the Cross is one) apply Christ's merits as Sacraments do; confer their graces ex opere operato, as Sacraments do. Finally produce their effects, infallibiliter si id vttle sit hominibus; and what need is there that any Sacrament should do more? It is the Cross (saith one) whose virtue shineth in every Sacrament, the efficacy of blessing in the imposition of hands, (and that is a Sacrament with them) dependeth upon the sign of the Cross saith another: an other sort of them teach, that the sign of the Cross may supply Baptism, and stand in the room thereof. Thirdly, from Fathers and Papists come we down to home writers, who teach that every new devised sign, is a new devised Sacrament, and that a Sacrament and a Sacramentale be all one, as long as there is an outward sign with symbolical signification, and that the Papists are sacrilegious in bringing the Cross so near a Sacrament as they do. In regard hereof they cannot be clear that do use the Cross in a Sacrament as we do. The Manichees did eat the meat, the dressers whereof they held in execration, and are held ridiculous. As then we detest the Papists for dressing of the Cross with the relish of Baptism, so let us forbear to eat of the meat it self which they have dressed there, who should abstain even from the very broth it self, of every unclean thing. When the Nazarites were forbidden to drink wine, it was unlawful for them to taste of the liquar of the grape. Augustine reproveth the Manichees for that professing earnest hatred against the wine, they would fill their bellies with grapes notwithstanding. Seeing then we profess hatred against the popish Cross, retain we no longer this liquorishe taste of him in our Sacrament. They that will not eat meat, must yet touch it, to show that they did not judge it unclean like the heretics. Our use of the Cross in Baptism, if it be not an eating of this Idolothite, yet is it at least a touching of it, whereby the people judge it clean. Augustine himself was carried away with the use of his time to think that the Oylie Cross in genere signacularum visibilium was sacro-sanctum sicut ipse Baptismus. Will not simple men be drawn much more to think that the sign of the Cross is holy as Baptism is, all while they see it used in Baptism? Consider the water wont to be mingled with the wine of the supper, because it was suffeted there, it grew at last to be thought as necessary as the wine. So that the Armenians and our Church are condemned as heretics for omitting the water as are the Aquarij for the leaving out of the wine. What then? as the washing of the feet was cashiered from Baptism, when it seemed pertinere ad Baptismum, so now deal we with the Cross; whose first Sacramental guilt we have seen, that it is well near a Sacrament added.

#Sect. 21. The Opposites saying the Cross is Sacramentale, is four ways faulty.

THe second is that it is a Sacramentale, whose addition is found faulty of four sins against the second Precept. The first consisteth in a [Sacramental power] from the ruste, whereof, is our Cross scoured? What meaneth this bleating then in our ears? The Cross is an holy sign. A most effectual teacher, yea, there cannot be a more forcible mean to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame. Howbeit draw we near, and we shall hear more. Master Hooker being ashamed to apply the text of Ezech. 9.4. Apoc. 7.3. to the sign of the Cross in that gross manner as Jesuits do, fetcheth a windlasse which cunningly bringeth them at the last to the very same standing. They mean (forsooth) no visible mark, but security from that shame which useth to show her self in the face: whereof shall I say, (saith he) the sign of the Cross is in some sort a mean? since he thinketh it, he may very well say it, to make known to the world an Amalekites beast is kept alive which should have died. For shall I say, the sign of the Cross is in some sort effective of grace, if in some sort it be a mean to secure from confusion everlasting? And how do not these places imply a mark visible, if they employ the Cross for a mean of the safety that they promise? Howbeit draw we near, and we shall hear yet more. He is not ashamed to cite a sentence of Cyprian, who saith, the Cross doth purisie the forehead. Yea keep it pure from the Garland of Satan, in the same sort that the Sacrament of the Supper keepeth pure the mouth from the scraps of Idols. Now how cometh it to pass, that M. Hookers forcible mean to keep foreheads from shame, hath so foully deceived his Master? leaving his own forehead so void of shame, as to justify this purifying of foreheads by the Cross, and this keeping pure? But he hath made some recompense (you will say) in the second allegation out of Tertullian, which for very shame of the forehead is shuffled (as it were) out of the rank, to stand in the margin. No this was policy, because he showeth his horns too openly, and bleateth the Amalekitish Idiom too broad. If it had been shame he would not have brought him into the field: he being burnt in the ear as a Rogue of Montanus by the bench of all our writers. One of whom thus: Tertullianus de resurrection carnis, &c. Tertullian in his book of the resurrection reciteth Unction, signing with the Cross, and the imposing of hands, for the ceremonies of Baptism. Neither doth he only ascribe unto them decency and signification, but efficacy also. For he saith, the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be sanctified. The flesh is signed that the soul may be fenced; the flesh is shadowed with imposition of hands, that the soul may be enlightened with the spirit: and that these are Montanicall, it may be gathered by this that he addeth in the same place, serophagias sordes corporis monogamiam quae montanita esse certum est. But Master Hooker doth not mean he saveth frō shame, purifieth the forehead, & fenceth the soul ex opere operato, as doth the Papist: but ex opere operamis only, as he sturreth up meditation, and consideration, or (to speak in his own language) imagination, which happily are a sleep without it. He differreth (in deed) that the papist giveth unto the Cross, a power ex opere operato against the Devil which he giveth not, as for the grace which sanctifieth, some papists give no more power to the Cross then doeth Master Hooker for ought I see, for he maketh it powerful (as a mean) which God blesseth to the inward stutring up of the mind: and what doeth Stephen Gardener himself give more to the Cross or to holy water, or to anything in their imagined power of sanctifying? Doth not a Jesuit directly deny, that a Cross imprinteth any holiness saving by prayer? Others (it may be) give a power ex opere operato in this behalf, but I leave them in the midst, the point I drive at being apparent a power Sacramental, to stir up the soul by striking the senses, is ascribed to the Cross, and that very near in a popish manner against the doctrine of our Writers who disclaim it.

#Sect. 22. The Fathers urge a necessity of the Cross very superstitiously. The Papists more indifferent then they, therefore their authority of no value for the Cross.

AS the Cross is a Sacramentale guilty, for the power Sacramental which it usurpeth, so for the necessity which it challengeth to it self, and that in the Fathers monuments which we have chosen for our guides. For Cyprian is cited to prove that Baptism hath no effect, but in the figure of the Cross. In the answering whereof we put ourselves to much trouble, unless we yield that Cyprian meant the very sign it self of the Cross together with Christ's death. Ambrose is cited, the saving water of this Sacrament, is no more saving without the Cross, then the water of Marah was sweet without the wood that was thrown into it. August. is cited to prove no Sacrament is perfected rite without the Cross, which whether it be as much as recte in his judgment or no, it is not much material. As for the Papists their necessity is better espied by their practice and by their preaching, then by their schools and by their writings which are more crafty. Here of late they have scattered abroad many pamphlets in rithme after the example of the old Arians. Now one of their Ballades runneth thus.

For this necessities sake the rule is to be held, which is delivered by one of our writers, which he inclusively meaneth of the very Cross it self, which he did not rehearse among the tolerable rites of the Fathers of which he had spoken before: Quodilla postea, &c. Whereas those ancient ceremonies of baptism, which arose after together with others superstitious and frivolous which are used in the papacy, have been taken away by our men, this was even necessary: because of the superstitions which were introduced, & for the opinion of necessity. Hezekiah is commended for breaking the brazen serpent: which (notwithstanding) was ordained by God; because the Israelites had begun to abuse it. How much more then are our mento be commended, who have done this in rites ordained by men: quanquam per se non malis quoniam iam plenae essent: superstitionum. What (then) though the Cross were not evil [perse] by reason of the popish necessity, it is to be removed after the example of other Churches who have abolished it: out of an opinion that it is a necessary duty to remove all rites which have mounted to an estimate of necessity. In regard hereof it is a fig leaf, covering no nakedness, which is tossed up and down, The Law doth not make the Cross a necessary part of Baptism, but a rite only needful for decency and for order. First the harlot herself can say as much for her excuse, for whose necessity notwithstanding our writers think a removal necessary in every of her rites. For the Master of the Sentences telleth us, that the sacramentalia (of which the sign of the Cross is one) do not pertain, ad substantiam sacramenti, but ad solemnitatem only. Thomas Aquinas saith, that the Sacramentalia are not necessary, ad esse sacramenti, but only ad been esse. Bellarmine saith, the Sacramentalia are not necessary, ad integritatem sacramenti essentialem, but ad integritatem accidentalem, and no more. The Canon Law having rehearst the Sacramentalia, addeth this, haec cum patrimis non mutant esse sed ornant. Besides these general distinctions Aquinas saith particularly of the sign of the Cross, that it is not necessary to any Sacrament. Holcot, that it is not necessary to Baptism that which also is affirmed both by Martial and by Alphonsus, the last of whom reckoneth it an heresy to hold the Cross to be necessary in Baptism, although he seem to miss in the heretic, which by probability cannot be Claudius Taurinensis, because he opposed himself against the worship of the Cross; not only material, but aerial also.

#Sect. 23. The Opposites give that to the sign of the Cross, which is only proper to an essential part of the Sacrament.

SEcondly, though we intend not to make the Cross a part of Baptism, yet we give that to him which only is proper to an essential part thereof, and it is sacrilege (saith one of our writers) to give that, which is proper to a Sacrament in whole or in part to anything else. Our writers tell us, the oil is abolished, because it incroched upon the material sign of Baptism. Now wherein doth the oil more then the cross? Though to be a sign be not proper to a sacrament, yet to be a sign [ determined ] in God's covenant, is in part (at least) proper to it. Now this the sign of the Cross hath with us. Seeing the Jews (saith Augustine ) died for their ceremonies, how much more ought we to strive, pro Sacramento, pro Christi Baptismo, prosigno Dei? We follow him and strive for the Cross as for a Sacrament, and do we not (then) give it the honor, which is proper to an essential part of Baptism? Is there so much care for the purity of Baptism, as there is for the honor of this sign? If Baptism it self were in question, could it be more eagerly maintained then now the Cross is? What that we give it even the office of an essential part or Baptism, of which hereafter? Thirdly, though we intend not to make the Cross a necessi • ry part of Baptism, yet we seem to make it: which is faulty by that council which abolished the Trine immersion upon this reason, ne approbare videantur hareticorū assertionem dum sequuntur & morem. And I would we had no cause to complain of the effects of this our seeming. For it is known that some refusete be Godfathers where the Cross is not used. Others living in places where it is disused, carry their children where they may have it. It hath been known also that children have been rebaptized for the lack of it. The people are in fault for this. True, for the sin, but our Governors for the stumbling block, who though the Cross be mos haereticorum yet use it, and continue it in Baptism, together with the sign of the covenant, as if it were equal with it. For what course have we taken here to make it seem inferior to it? It is thought the Priest is prejudiced in his order when the Deacon is suffered to sit with him, or to consecrate in his presence. But the Cross sitteth with Baptism and dedicateth our seed to God. The Cor Episcopus is barred from faluting the people, with the sign of the Cross in the presence of the Bishop, but the sign of the Cross, not only saluteth, but also receiveth and admitteth our children into the Church, in the presence of Baptism. Every King putteth of his Crown in an others kingdom; every Archbishop layeth down his Cross in an others Province; every Subordinate state submitteth his Mace, in the presence of a greater. Whereas no man diuesteth a Cross, what should I say, lay him down or aside? in the Kingdom, Province, or presence of Baptism; when the most part strike to hoyste him yet higher. The Abbot is bound to wear a Miter of less ornament then the Bishop, that when both be in place together, the Abbot may be known to be inferior to the Bishop, whereas there is no order taken to make it outwardly appear, that the Cross is inferior to the water. When there is something mingled with the bread in the Lord's Supper, all is marred, if the permixture be [ Magna ] puta ex aequo vel quasi. When the wine is mingled with the water, there must be [ paululum aquae ] & plus de vino quam de aqua. Whereas therefore in all cases of emulation, the wise dome of man hath provided sensible signs and visible marks of inferiority, we are to blame that in our use of the Cross in Baptism, we ordain such a visible and such an outward administering of him, as Baptism hath it self.

#Sect. 24. The Opposites objection saying the Cross in Baptism is inferior to the water, because it comes after, confuted.

NOt so (say some) we cause the Cross to come after the water, which is acknowledgment sufficient of inferiority, and a sensible badge of subjection to it. First, this ill beseemeth our mouths, who cannot endure the Papist when he maketh the same excuse. The Cross (saith he) which cometh after the consecration in the Lord's Supper belongeth not to it. We oppose against him, the consecration doth reach to the whole administration of the Sacrament, within which administration, whatsoever sign is administered, it cannot but (at least) in show pertain unto it. Ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti, theresore it is part of the Sacrament, saith the Canon. So all while the Cross is within the [celebration] of Baptism, it is [morally] a part thereof. For ensample, The feast came after the worshipping of the calf, and after the substance of Idolatry. Yet because it appertained to the solemnity, the Apostle not only counteth it a part of the Idols service, but also such a principal part as includeth all the rest that went before. The Agapae came after the substance of the Lord's supper, yet because they appertained to the solemniye, the Apostle allegeth the institution against them, which holdeth only against such rites of a Sacrament as be added partes thereof. The wearing of the white garment it self, us{que} ad dominicam de albis: & abstinence from washing all the week long, were ever reputed to belong to Baptism, as well as any other rite, because it hanged in the extremes of Baptismes solemnity. We accuse the Papists for making Oil a part of Baptism, yet doth it follow after the water, as far of as the Cross: yea after the first crossing. Finally the worst additions in the world may be excused by this shift. The worst addition in Bellarmine's judgment, is additio ad opus praeceptum, as if one household should have eaten two lambs in the sacrament of the Passover instead of one. Whereas by this divinity of ours, there is a trick to eat two Lambes within the solemnity of this Sacrament, and yet be guiltless: to wit, by eating one after another. The worst addition which we meet withal in the Fathers, is the bread and cheese of the Artotyritae in the Lord's Supper, which by this Theology is lawful enough: provided that the bread and cheese be eaten after the supper bread, and receiving of the wine. Secondly, this excuse holdeth by that separation, which it maketh between the water and the Cross: Whereas (indeed) there is nothing that marreth this whole ointment like this one fly (I would say plea) of separatiō. What maketh the fitches, tylles, tares with the like, which are mingled with the wheat, that they make no addition to the bread of the Supper? because there is no separation but id quod est modicum assumitur à plurimo. And what is the cause that the ancient mingling of the water with the wine was tolerable? because the water became one with the wine without separation, and was no sign of a diverse species from it? as one describeth, Qua copulatio aquae & vini sic miscetur in calice domini, vt mixtio illa non poss it seperari. Let me hear (then) what saith this excuse? I have separated the Cross from the water? If thou hast made a separation, thou hast made a fair hand: this very separation maketh the Cross to be a sign of a diverse species, and so by consequent to be an addition that is unlawful. And the manner of this separation (boasted of) maketh the after place of the Cross yet worse. For, there being a word seueralled to it, such (for show) as the water hath, occasion is given to the simple to imagine, that the water and Cross in Baptism are of the same sequence and consequence too, that the bread and wine are in the Lord's Supper. Indeed what hindereth? For what though the Cross and the water be diverse in matter? So are the bread and the wine in the Supper. They make one refection in Christ, and so grow to be formally one, these may grow to be one likewise, because they make formerly one, investing into the Church. And doth not the Cross touch the water as near as the wine doth touch the bread? The postation of the wine doth not prejudice it, therefore the postponing of the Cross doth not prejudice it neither. A separation of so small distance waggeth no corn, it casteth the Cross behind the water, but not below it. Never thought the ancient Christians there was a sufficient separation between them and the Jews, till the solemnities themselves did differ on diverse days. So that, as long as the Cross and the water, our Cross and the popish, are seen in the same solemnity of Baptism, the separation is insufficient. Thirdly, so far is it that the Cross cometh after Baptism, thereby to be made morally at the least no part thereof, that it hath in fight the chiefest room and seat of credit, which the administration of this Sacrament can afford. It maketh much for the Crosses credit that he receiveth into the Church, although it be out of the Sacrament, as the citing of these words bear witness, Nondum quidem adhuc per sacrum baptismum renati estis, sed per crucis signum in viero sanctae matris Ecclesiae iam concepti estis. What credit (then) is there done him, being set in Baptism, where we receive into the Church, and dedicate to Christ which is the whole office of Baptism it self, & the whole benefit that we reap by it. And can the oil and the lights be of little credit though they follow after the water, when they are used to help to receive into the Church? Pontifex (saith the story) prae gaudio lachrimans cunctos aqua abluens, chrismate liniens in sinum matris Ecclesiae congregauit flagrabant Carei, lampades refulgebant. Again, The Ring cannot have a more honorable place in Marriage, then where the wisdom of man hath seated it, in regard of marriage solemnity, it is used when the conjunction is in making, in regard of the party married, it is set on the fourth finger of the left hand, the nerve whereof runneth strait to the heart. But the very same place hath the Cross in Baptism, while we and Christ are conjoined together by our receluing into the Church, we use it, & we imprint it on the forehead, ad quēspirit us direcle à cord ascendunt. Moreover, why should a subsequence after the water make a rite seem the less, and a precedency before the water not make it seem greater, which yet it did never? Non ijs sufficit quod inuncti sunt, festinent ad Lauacrum si lumen inquirunt (saith Augustine. ) Whereof two ceremonies alluded to the one going before the water (to wit the Oil) and the other coming after (to wit the light) this (we see) which cometh after, is preferred. So that from the ceremonies before the water men always pass to them that came after, as in a progression from the imperfect to those that be perfecter. There was an Oil before the water in old time, and one after the water: and which of them was held the better? Sure not the oil that went before the water which was Oleum simplex, serving for the shoulders, breast and forehead, but that which came after, which was Oleum principale confectum (scilicet) ex Oleo & Balsamo, and which annointed in Vertice, which is the highest part of all. Once more, When men would have the water in the Supper to be no sign by itself, nor an addition to that Sacrament, they mingled it with the wine before it was consecrate and not after: so that the place which may give seeming the Cross is no part of Baptism, is to use it before the water rather then after, which is the place of greatest ambition serving to perfect, seeming to consummate all the rest that went before, as experience it self hath tried, and that in the greatest men. Thus Cyprian baptizati signo dominico consummantur, Thus Ambrose, superest signaculum vt perfectio fiat. Thus Cornelius, because Novatus was not signed, therefore he had not all his Christendom. Thus the custom of the whole Church, the obsignation is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even the upshot of all the rest. The Greek Church saith of the after complements of Baptism: to wit, the Oil of confirming, and of the bread of the Supper which they put into the mouth of the Infant that is Baptized, hic est finis omnis mysterij. It hath a long time been held by the Latin Church that the rites of Baptism which came after the water, did make a Christian, and give Christendom, which none could have (it was thought) without them. Illa perficiens vnctio facit perfectum, quippe diuinae regenerationis perfectio. Qui confirmatus non est, non est perfectus Christianus, nec sidem habei inter perfectos. A place cited out of Clemens, to which there acordeth another brought out of Rabbanus: Omnes fideles per manus impositionem Episcoporum, accipere debent spiritum sanctum, vt pleni Christiani inueniantur. Euermore then hath the last place of the folemnitie of this Sacrament been a stage where those ceremonies have shown themselves that would be esteemed the perfecters and finishers of our Christendom. The water we see is poured on, and here is not finis Mysterij. Neither is a man made hereby a Christian, no he shall not be called a Christian by any nor suffered to sit among Christians until he partake of the after rites of Baptism, and by name the Oylie-Cross. It may be some will think I will apply the former testimonies to the after rites of Baptism which seem to belong to the Sacrament of confirmation. But let them not deceue themselves. There was at the first no confirmation out of Baptism, but it was within the solemnity of Baptism, that the child received the water, the bread of the Supper & the oil of confirmation; as all evidences and writings show. Have we not done (then) a great deed, and with admirable wisdom prevented occasion of a necessary estimation in the Cross? To wit we have set him at the latter hand of the water, as Peter is set at the left hand of Paul in the Popes Bull, I ende with the title of the Canon, which doth it say: of the sign of the Cross after Baptism? No, but it goeth thus: of the sign of the Cross in Baptism.

#Sect. 25. A third fault wherein th'Opposite usurpeth upon Sacramental offices.

THus have we seen how guilty this Sacramentale is in a Sacramental power, and in a necessity Sacramental. Come we now to a third fault wherein he usurpeth upon Sacramental offices which he beareth in this Sacrament or unto it. Touching the former; we rejoice (I know) to follow the Fathers, and so to use the Cross in Baptism as they did use it; but there and in the other Sacrament of the Supper which was signare Christi bona; which how can it be justified? For first as none can sign a lease but he that hath power to lett and demise it: so none devise a sign of the covenant, or of any grace thereof, but God alone that promiseth. This the school men saw & taught, determinare quo signo, &c. It pertaineth only to the signifier to determine what sign must be used to signify. But it is God who is the signifier unto us of things spiritual by things sensible in the Sacrament, and by words similitudinarie in the scriptures; therefore as it is determined by the Judgment of the holy spirit, by what similitudes things spiritual should be signified in certain places of the Scripture, so it ought to be determined also by divine institution what things should be chosen to signify in this, or in that Sacrament. I add to this the commentary added by a Cardinal. Aduerte quam, &c. Consider from hence how presumptuous, and injurious their wittines is, which write or preach, or interpret the similitudes of poetes or some of their own, thereby to represent things spiritual. For they usurp the office of the Holy Ghost, by whose judgment some things are ordained to be figures of other things; and they vilify the sacred Scripture, while by such fiction they give occasion to believe that the things which are in the Scripture, are figurs by human spirit, even as these which they have framed by the dexterity of human wit, so much authority is detracted frō the figures of the holy Scripture. I press here that God only is significans: that it cometh from carnal wisdom to devise any significations; that he usurpeth the office of the holy Ghost that added new signs: and lastly that new signs devised are so far from adorning the water of Baptism, as that they vilify it and detract much authority from it. One main ground of this doctrine is mainly refused (I know) by the papists, which is that no man may devise any worship of God: and another ground is brought in place (to wit) the Sacraments of the New Testament do give grace and none can give grace but God only: And therefore none ordain a sign but God alone. How near our Opposites come to this Jesuit, all men may know who hear them distinguish, though a man may not devise an exhibitiue sign, yet he may devise a significative, one such as is the sign of the Cross. Alas to what poor shifts are these men driven! For we have heard out of the school men already that God is the only signifier both in things and in words: therefore a sign even quatenus it signifieth must be from him. Nay, this cannot stand before Bellarmine himself, even he therefore shall be their judge. For though the signs of the Old Testament be not in his judgment, exhibitiue of any grace, but significative only, yet he saith, they were all ordained of God & so ought to be. Upon this reason (which now taketh hold on the sign of the cross, seeing we use him to receive into the Church) etiamsi Sacramenta vetera non efficiebant gratiā iustificantē, camen introducebant in populū dei, at nemo potest determinare aliquid ad introducendū incertā rempublicā nisi qui author est illius legis & reipublicae. Secondly even in the time of the old law whē signs reigned, none were lawful which were not shown in the pattern of the mount: the letter of which commandment then the equity now keepeth out all signs devised by man which are not found in the pattern of the word. The signs which now mā deviseth, it keepeth out the more strongly because they obscure the Gospel: for nothing ought to be adūbrated now in the clear light thereof, say our writers. So that we thus plead against the oil (& the oil & the cross are twins of one birth) Christus transsadit in nos vnctionem spiritus abs{que} tali Ceremonia. Again. Christianinon vnguntur amplius per typos & imagines, fed per ipsas nudas virtutes. Christus mutanit vnctionē carnal̄ in spiritual̄. No ceremony in Baptism like to the oil, it goeth beyond all the rest, in this that the smell of it affecting the sense, it striketh adeeper force & impressiō into the mind. If therefore it must vanish away, and the oil spiritual be only left, much more the sign of the cross must be taken away, & the cross spiritual be left only behind, w ^ch is faith in Ch. Jesus crucified, & patience to bear his cross. Whereas it was an ancient custom ( saith a papist) to wash the feet before Bapt. the Church is now contented with the thing signified only, which is internal preparatiō: why should not we be then contented with the thing signified of the Cross, in consideration that God hath not abolished his own signs in this time of the Gospel, to give mā leave to set up others in their rooms. Thus August. Christiana libertas cos quos invenit sub signis vtilibus, interpretatis signis quibus subditi erant ad cas res quarūilla signa sunt eleuauit. Is it not a singular benefit to be taught clearly without signs: which to understand some Oros Apollo had need still be present with us to expound thē: what shall the people of Egypt do with the Hierogliphicall letters of their priests which are significative? plain letters are best for thē whereby to write. So was it a benefit for the people of the East, that the Emperor abolished the significative writing of the law by Notae, which served for Compendiū, bringing ina plain manner of writing, without any such signs. So was it a benefit for Philosophers that Aristot. abolished the figures & numbers of the Platonickes & Pythagorians reducing lodgike into such an Art, as proved an instrument of plains in teaching. So was it a benefit (last of all) that Diodorus Tarsensis ( Chrysost. schoolm.) brought in a simple & literal meaning of the Scriptures, abolishing mystical significations. What then? very bad service do our Opposites to the Church, to make way to a new servitude of signs to be by man devised against our own law, which proveth at large against all signs which the papists have brought into Bapt. that no signs now should burthē the church, save those which the L. hath left which are not burdensome. I end with one of our writers. To devise new signs, is to set the Church to school again after the Jewish manner. This Jewish fashion how intolerable now it is, another telleth Quod vero praetendunt, &c. whereas they pretend that many things may be godly & profitably signified, admonished & taught by those rites which are added be mē, to that it may be answered, that figurs are proper to the old Testa. Look what things Christ will have taught & admonished in the new, those things he will have proposed and deliuerd not in shadows, but in the light of his word, & we have a promise frō him for the efficacy of the word but none for the efficacy of figurs devised by men. But such rites as he would have added to his word, those he hath ordained himself.

#Sect. 26. Though the devising of new signs corrupt the simplicity of Sacraments ordained by Christ: yet it hindereth not but something is left to the Church concerning circumstances, as time, place, order, &c.

THirdly, the devising of new signs corrupteth the simplicity of the Sacraments which are perfectly ordained by Christ: What (then) is there nothing left to the Church? Yes, the disposing of the circumstances of God's service, as time, place, order of doing with the like: and of the particulars of those things which the word commandeth in general: as the profession and preaching of faith & repentance at Baptism, & the applying of the element with prayers fit, beyond which there must nothing be added as one of our Writers saith, who after he had rehearst all these hoc est primum rituum genus (saith he) quod & necessarium est, & solum sufficit. Indeed when Christ said, hoc facite, he tied his church to his own signs, and to them only, as one thus showeth, Cumfilius Dei sacramenta ita instituerit, vt ea certis à se institutis ritibus praeceperit administrari, valde ardua est quaestioan hominibus permissum sit alios praeterea quocun{que} praetextu superaddere. Fourthly, ask the Fathers of the primative Church, whether any signs were used in their days besides them which the Lord ordained. For it sufficeth against every upstart sign that ab initio non fuit sic: because nothing must be received in a Sacrament, but that which the Lord ordained as Paul wrote once to Corinth & it was xxvj. years after the assention that he thus wrote. Whereby it appeareth, Neijs quidem vnquam venisse in memtem auctiorem ritum Ecclesijs profuturum. Now we are recalled to the simplicity of these first times well near by all our writers. Some of them wish that the glory of Christ may shine nakedly of it self as in the beginning when it was purest: when all these devises of men were unknown; Others will, that it be now as it was then, when in Baptism there was no ceremony, but that which had express commandment or ensample in the Scripture. As a man runneth to the fountain (saith Cyprian ) when the channels are defiled, so must we repair to the practice of the first Church which is the fountain of all piety. All customs which are grown up since, we are to reject, be they never so ancient, not sparing the signs which the Fathers themselves did use; whose ceremonies arose frō an evil root, which was indeed a fond desire to please the Pagans & the Jews, proceeded with a mind not humble nor obedient, and ended in an evil event. For God accursed this their presumptiō, & suffered Satan to work out of it even Antich. defection itself frō the faith. Fifthly, to bring in ceremonies & to give them a signification, is to conficere nouū rationale diuinorū officiorū, to the justifying of Durand, yea of the whole church of Rome in all her symbolical signs devised, if not in all (the worst of which is not worse then the Cross) yet in the white garment, the taper in Baptism, and the head veil since these were not abused by them to operation, but were used for significatiō only, as we pretend we use the cross. Our writers use to allege that of the Apost. What I have received, that do I deliver: that of our Lord: Go & baptize, teaching to observe all that I have commanded. That of Peter: Can any forbid water that these may not be baptized, against the oil, the salt, & the spittle, & the rest of that ragged rewe. I ask, are these scriptures forcible against these? then they exclude the cross [as well] which is worse then these. And when Bellarmine biddeth us cease to teach, we must have no other signs in Baptism then such as the scripture warrāteth, or else leave out our cross, what shall we answer him? Sixthly, we have on our side, all the Protestants down frō Wickliefe, not one of them but hath fled to this bulwark: No sign must be received in Baptism, which hath ben devised by man. It was Wycliffe himself that set it on foot; John Hus continued it: M ^r Calvin resumed it: whole Churches confess it: All Writers make it good against the Papists. When Bellarmine excuseth the signs of his Church, and saith, they are not advmbrations, because the things that are signified by them, are res spirituales presents, and not things that be to come: he receiveth answer from us. It is blasphemy to think, that any outward thing may be made a sign in the Church of anything that is spiritual, unless it be expressly ordained in the word, and commanded by God himself to be used to that end. When the Monks of Burdeaux affirm the signs which are added to Baptism, are an ornament to it, we thus reply: Num igitur sunt, &c. Are they wiser then Christ Jesus, who hath ordained his Sacrament in so great purity and simplicity, and who knoweth better then all the men in the world, what ornament was fittest for it? If it be but the covenant of a man when it is confirmed, no man abrogateth it, or addeth anything to it: what arrogancy is it then to add to the institution of Christ? Master Bucer condemneth them that devise, vllum signum invsum religions. Master Hawkes (holy Martyr) I deny (saith he) in Baptism all things devised by man, as your oil, salt, spittell, &c. John Denlie (a Martyr likewise) the Punuch (saith he) said to Phillip: Loe here is water; we do not read that he asked for Oil, cream, spittell, or anything else. Hereby it appeareth, that the ancient Religion of the Protestants is with us, that liberty to devise new signs is but a young wanton novice, which the licentious Adiaphorism hath begotten.

#Sect. 27. Though it were lawful for the Church to denise new signs, yet not for religious use, especially where God hath ordained signs for the same purpose already.

SEcondly, though it were lawful to devise new signs, yet not where and for what God hath ordained signs already in use religious, as the Cross (we know) signifieth that which Baptism hath already signed by the ordinance of the Lord. For first it beseemeth us to acknowledge God so wise, in the sign that he hath chosen, as to hold it presumption for any to imitate him in devising of the like. For ensample, None must devise an Oil like his, none an Altar besides his, none a fire like the fire which he hath chosen. Yea in his works themselves he is not magnified as he deserveth till we confess none is able to come after him: and till we say, who is able to do the like? Secondly, when man deviseth new signs, the signs of God are vilified, as if they also were but from an human spirit. Yea, as if they were minus idoneae & sufficientes: in particular, as if the water were not enough even as our own Law speaketh. Thirdly, whereas man is carnal, blind and impotent, and yet a lover of his own devises (no less then Pygmalion of his own picture) if he should be suffered to invent new signs, they would be carnal and not spiritual; dead having no power, they would be dark also, vayling the brightness of the Sacrament, and yet more loved and delighted in, then the Sacraments themselves. For ensample, Gedcon setteth up an Ephod and other ceremonies like them in the Tabernacle. For the Ephod as a principal one includeth all the rest (saith Augustine ) which made it not Ophra in very short time more famous then the Tabernacle? So a Temple built on Garezim (like the Temple at Jerusalem ) ouertoppeth the Temple, and to what fame ariseth a Temple which Onias built in Heliopolis, like to that of the Lord's in Jury, abusing to his purpose Isaiah 10. I will set up an Altar in the midst of Egypt. What need we go further then to the very sign in hand? For no sooner was it added to Baptism and made a sign like to the Lord's, (there being abused to his commendation. Ezech. 9.4. Apoc. 7.3.) but he presently became greater then the water which was Christ's sign, and that in the eyes of those who so advanced him. Fourthly, we have here the judgment of the learned with us. What say we to him that condemneth all the ceremonies of the Mass that signify Christ's passion, the same that the Supper signifieth? What to him that condemneth the staying of the child at the Church door, to signify original sin, because Baptism signifieth this well enough without it? Last of all, what to all our writers, who condemn confirmation for that signifying the same that Baptism signified before, it robbeth the Sacrament of his honor? Let there be considered what our writers have against the Altars of the high places, because they were set up for the same use which the Altar had in the Temple. As for the cross, he is an Altar fetch from Damascus and set in the Temple cheek by ioule with the Altar of the Lord, which what is it else, quam Ethnicam suscipere religionem (saith one?) but to partake, say I, with the religion of that Damascus from which we borrow him?

#Sect. 28. And though it were lawful there to ordain new signs where God hath already ordained, yet is it not lawful to annex them to the holy signs of God, as with us the Cross is.

THirdly, though it were lawful to devise new symbolical signs, where the Lord hath ordained some already, yet is it not lawful to annex them to the holy signs of God, as we see the Cross adjoined to the water in Baptism in the very same solemnity. Master Calvin calleth the holy water a mere profanation and repetition of Baptism, and yet it is used out of Baptism. What (then) is the Cross used in Baptism to signify the same that Baptism doth? Is not Baptism the seal of the heavenly king? and can any new print be added to the seal of a King, without high treason? What that this heavenly King of ours delivereth his people to be marked with no other form or print save that which is framed in his word and in his own Sacraments, Rom. 2.21. and 6.17. It will be replied, there may be many fit signs of one and of the same thing. To which the school men answer, Idem potest per diuersa signa significari, determinare tamen quo signo sit vtendum ad significandum pertinet ad solum significantem. There is Typus factus, and there is typus destinatus. A man may use the former to his private use, but none the latter in use public and religious, God having here sole authority to ordain the signs of his covenant. For example I give instance in that sign which some of our Opposites object unto us was lawfully used by some of the Fathers. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth a fish, is at large 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is used in the Acrostich of Sibilla. What if Tertullian or Ambrose, or Rupertus use the emblem of a fish to put them selves in mind of Christ and of their duty towards him, whose fishes they are made by the water of Baptism. For Ambrose may well infer, As the water of the creation begat fishes to life, so the water of regeneration begat thee to grace. Fsto igitur tu piscis quem saculi vnda non mergat: when yet he may not make a Typus determinatus of it in use religious, and thereupon painte a fish upon the forehead of a child at the time of his baptizing. Do we not cry out upon the Dove let down of old upon the baptized (one of which I saw at Wickham not abolished some 25. years past) for a sign of regeneration by the spirit? Nay, whereas some say, Constantine set a lamb in the Baptisterie of Lateran, to signisie our sins are washed away in the Sacrament of Baptism by the blood of Jesus Christ, we cannot savor it. and yet this lamb never had any such state religious in the Sacrament as the sign of the Cross hath now. Sure a sign in such manner determined with state in Baptism, we can easily prove to have ben abhorred throughout all ages, howsoever in the particular of the Cross, the Oil, and some other signs, God permitted the ancient Fathers to fail in heart, to bring in (through their oversight against their own general doctrine) that Apostasy from the faith which he foretold. For prose hereof, I begin with the Agapae of the ancient Christians annexed to the supper; and so much the more willingly I begin with them, because our Opposites prove by them the lawfulness of our adding of the Cross. First the Agapae were far more tolerable then the Cross, they followed after the whole administration and the prayers thereof, they had no state among the actions of the Supper; they were in corporable into the bread and wine to make one banquet with them. Secondly, If we may add the sign of the Cross to Baptism by the pattern of these feasts, then may we add roastmeat or sodd meat to the Supper of the Lord, after the manner of the Armenians, who added sodmeate to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. The Council abhorreth this addition, condemneth it, counteth it execrable. And where as some feasts with the vessels of the Supper, the Council of Bracara thus exclaimeth: Hoc malum & obstupenies deflemus, & deflentes obstupescimus vt illic humana temeritas sibi epulum praeparet vbi sanctum spiritum cognoscitur aduocasse et ibi esum Carnium crapulatus assumat vbi diuina visus est celebrasse mysteria. By this we perceive how odious an additiō of meat would be to the Sacrament of the Supper, and (me thinks) our addition is worse. For the Agapae are more ancient then the Cross, and they follow after the bread and wine with greater distance then the Cross doth after the water; & are more homogene to the bread and to the wine then he is to the water. Thirdly, If our Opposites will match the Cross and these feasts together, then must he pack out of the Church. For the papist himself will confess that the Apostle misliked these feasts, and quite abolished them. Knowne it is that diverse Councils did forbid them in the Church, and the Canon Law still keepeth them out, when Paulinus could not banishe them out of saint Felix Church at Nola, he mourneth thus:

Which is a president to our Governors to grieve at the Cross in Baptism, as long as they see it there.

#Sect. 29. No outward sign ought to be added by the Church to Christ's institution.

MY second instance is in the addition of the water to the wine of the Supper. For as much as against this addition, and in it the former rule hath ever ben kept (to wit) that no outward sign must be added by the Church to Christ's institution. Against it Master Morton allegeth a Canon out of a Synod at Orleans that runneth thus: Nullus in oblationibus sacri calicis nisi quod ex fructu sacrae viniae speratur & hoc sine aqua mixium offerre praesamat; quia sacrilegium iudicatur aliud offerre quam quod in mandatis sacratissimis saluator instituit. What edition M ^r . Morton followeth I know not, but the doctrine is acknowledged by our Church, which holdeth the adding of the water to be against the institutiō, as the Council of Trent interpreteth. And what reason then to add the Cross to Baptism▪ The water of the Supper is more ancient, the Cross in Baptism younger. Christ used the water in the Supper by all probability, the Cross he used never in all certainty. The water was mixed before the solemnity of the Supper began, the Cross is adjoined in the cheese place of it. The water was added for civil use to alay the wine at first; the Cross was added for use religious, yea Sacramental. The water was never abused but to signification only, the Cross even to Idolatrous operation. The water of the Supper became one with the wine, the Cross remaineth still a sign by it self, and that of a diverse kind. If then our Church hath yet abolished the water from the wine of the Supper, least it should hear from the former council. Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou sacrilege? much more should the Cross be removed from the water of Baptism, seeing in the addition thereof, there is both sacrilege committed (as the former Council censureth) and an Idol blest besides. And the duty of not adding hath ben severely kept by those who have added this water, for that they hold it instituted by Christ, prophesied of by Solomon, bibite ex vino quod miscui vobis, and commended forever to be used in the Sacraments of Christ's death, because it flowed forth frō his side what time he died, whence Sacraments flowe. Upon these grounds the 4. Council of Orleans in the common edition commandeth this mixture upon the very same reason that is in the Council, which M ^r Morton alleged before, to wit, because it is sacrilege to use any outward sign in the Supper which is not ordained by Christ. So the Council of Hippo & Carthage commandeth this mixture & no more, vt in sacramentis nihil aliud offeratur quam quod Dominus tradidit. So the decree of Julius & the council of Bracara command this mixture and no more upon this reason that nothing be done in the Sacrament, but that the Lord did. So the Council of Constantinople commandeth this mixture to the Armenians, because nothing must be diminished nor added to that Quod Dominus tradidit. Last of all, So the Council of Wormes held in the year 868. commandeth this mixture & no more, because aliud offerri non debet quam quod Christus sub hoc Sacramento praebuisse cognoscimus. My third instance is in the honnie added to the wine of the Supper: like to which addition was the honny added to the water of Baptism, and put into the mouth of the infant baptized. These are as ancient as the Cross, and they were never so much abused, neither are they now likely to do like hurt. Yet a Council thought the honny added to the wine unlawful, because our L. ordained it not, & our own Church hath cast out the other. Moses forbad honey in every sacrifice. Wherefore? to shut out all human additions, which are honny-sweet to his carnal wisdom, in which relishe the cross exceedeth all his fellows. My fourth instance is in the addition of the milk to the L. supper; like to which was the milk added to the water in Baptism, and put into the mouth of the party baptized. This was as ancient as the cross, & it was never so much abused, & it hath his analogy of signification out of the scripture. it was given to the baptized ad infantiae signification̄: out of Peters words, As new borne babes desire the sincere milk of the word, &c. which is still the epistle read now as of old (saith Bellarmine ) to the baptized in Dominica in albis the next Sunday after Easter. Howbeit for all this, we have turned it headlong out of Baptism, as the Councils cashiered it out of the supper, because the L. ordained it not. This is in the Canon-law expressed at large quam hoc sit, &c. how contrary this is to the Apostolical doctrine, it will not be difficult to prove by the fact of the truth itself, by whom the Sacraments are ordained. For whē the M ^r of the truth commended the true sacrifice of our salvation to his Disciples, we know he gave thē in this Sacrament no milk but bread only & the cup. let therefore milk cease to be offered, because a manifest & evident example of evangelical truth hath shined forth, that besides bread & wine it is not lawful to offer anything else. We have here that the institution must be kept pure frō all additiō of any signs, & that a sign added is contrary to the institution. The very memory is abhorred of the Barsaniani and Semidalitae, for that instead of bread they used meal, even as others are utterly condemned for bringing grapes in steed of wine. Others for giving the bread dipt in wine pro cōplemento cōmunionis. The Greek church now at Cōstantino. crumbleth the bread into the wine, & so take both in a spone together. If these sin through defect against the complement of the Sacrament, judge (then) whether the cross sinneth not in excess, added for a further complement to the same? My last instance is in the bread & cheese, which the Artotyritae brought into the Supper upon an imitation of ancient times when the fruits of the earth & the fruits of the cattle were wont to be offered to the Lord; for they brought the chief for the fruit of the cattle, & the bread for the fruit of the earth. We plead antiquity for the cross in Baptism, bread & cheese pretend as much for a place in the supper. Notwithstanding this pretence, the bread and cheese are sent packing, because not commanded in the institution, at the terror whereof the Cross would begin to truss up his pack, trusted he not in our parcialitie, who pull him back even when we see the backs of his betters.

#Sect. 30. Though it were lawful to devise new symbolical signs in the Sacrament where God hath ordained already, yet not to take a Cross frō the brothelhouse of superstition.

FOurthly, though it were lawful to devise new symbolical signs in the Sacrament where God hath ordained some already, and to append them to these Sacraments, and by name to Baptism: yet is it not lawful to take a Cross from the brothelhouse of God's great enemy, all whose signs must out to the dunghill: as our best Divines do teach. Thus Augustine, Quod ad cos quos Dearinuenit sub signis invtilibus non solum seruilem operationem sub talibus signis sed ipsa etiam signa frustrauit, remouit{que} omnia. What plainer evidence can we have as to remove the superstitious use of this sign, so likewise this sign it self: we instead of removing, bring him into the holy place. What mean we thus even to despite the Lord (saith Paul unto us?) For as Adrian could not spite the Jews worse, then to set up the Image of a swine over the gate of Jerusalem which they most hated, so for ought that I can see we cannot more provoke the Lord, then to set up, his Sacrament this sign (most odious) of his enemy, which is as swine's flesh to him. And must we needs amongst those his enemies signs make choice of the Cross, the very worst of all the rest? For as the sottishnes of Ptolemeus Philopater, was the more ignominious, the more base his harlot Agathoclea was, so is our provocation the greater (wherewith we provoke the Lord) in that our inordinate love hath lighted on the Cross, then which there is not amongst all other signs of Rome a more gross or dirty harlot. What that we love her even in her filthiness: to wit, in her signification which is the shame of her adultery and fornication. The Cross must be worshipped (saith one) Quia habet significationem sacram, he must be adored (saith another) Non solum quatenus goret vicem prototypi sed etiam quatenus similitudinem geritrei sacrae, & quatenus signum. It may be here will arise some scruple; as if our writers thought not the Cross to be the worst of Baptismes pollutions: because they are silent and name not the Cross, when they name others: to wit, the oil, salt, and spittel, & write against them. But it may be their purpose was to rehearse the rites that were proper to Baptism. Tertullian himself nameth not the Cross in his book which he writeth of Baptism, who yet holdeth it one of the chiefest rites thereof. The Papists think most highly of the Cross; yet do they often omit it: as in these verses.

As for our writers when they name not the Cross, they include it. And there be who among the pollutions of Baptism, name the sign of the Cross for the very first. Who among the fordes of Baptism name the sign of the Cross for one. Lastly, who among the profanations of Baptism reckon the Cross, & therefore throw him out of the Sacrament, as out of a sling. Indeed why not he as well as his fellows? because the Cross is aerial, & not so gross as the rest that be material. As if we have not abolished the Flatus of the exorcism, which is as aerial as is the cross, and condemned it for superstitious even as it was used anciently amongst the Fathers? Great exception sure to be taken against the aërealnes of a popish sign, seeing to them there is even a Character that is invisible and yet a sign; words also are signs with them in their Sacraments of penance and marriage, which are more aerial then the Cross. Another objection is wont to be made we may well choose the sign of the Cross above his fellows, because God in nature hath commended him, a thing not lightly thought of by the Fathers: who use to cite for the Crosses commendation, that no man can sail in the sea without it; or till the lande; and that the foul flying, yea man himself praying doth make the Cross. These were but rhetorications in the Fathers; and they had use against the pagans who depended on nature, as for us who depend upon Christ's institutiō, we leave them to papists to play withal. For if we go to the best signs in nature, what form comparable to a circle? of which the very Fathers themselves: p Circulirotundi figura est figura caeteris pulchrior. If to the best by art, why is not the triangel of Jerome of Prague, as good as the best, that which he termed scutum fidei? But we must take heed, in a Sacrament how we rely upon natures commendation. Some Christians once used water in the Lord's supper not wine, least the smell of it should have detected them to their persecutors. These did ill, but the Aquarij worse, who even out of the time of persecution and of danger used water and not wine, which sprang from the Taciani, and the Encratita who advaunced water above wine, for natural qualities and commendations. Nay, we must turn a quite contrary leaf admiring the goodness, and the wisdom of God, who hath chosen common creatures for the signs of his Sacraments and such as be in u nature bace, that so no virtue may be put in them, and our obedience be tried by submitting our selves unto them. A third objection is wont to be made. Many of the reformed Churches beyond the seas retain still the Cross in Baptime, for I have heard the sound of such a blast, which maketh me much to marvel. For the harmony of confessions maketh no such things to appear unto us: we find not by it the sign of the Cross received, or approved in any protestant Church on the earth, we find an observation rather which inclusiue speaketh some what against it. Quadam istorum, &c. (speaking of the popish rites of Baptism) certain of these as merely superstitious; others as manifestly translated from the Baptism of old men to the Baptism of infants, by the negligence of the Bishops others of them (last of all) as being altogether unprofitable. We have dashed out, as is plainly confessed in the confession of Wittenburg. Doth not Pamelius make this difference between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, that the one doth use the sign of the Cross, the other doth not use it? And Bellarmine citeth no protestaut Church, when he would prove that we use the Cross in Baptisine without the warrant of the word, he only citeth a catechism of Lutherans which hath these words: signum Crucis signetur in front & in pectore Baptizandi. Now as for this Luther he crossed himself every morning and every evening, and is never seen painted but praying before some crucifix. Shall we approve him in this also as we approve him in the former? No, but in both let us consider how contrary he is even to his own doctrine delivered else where, in Baptism eadem signa quae Christus instituit & non alia sant adhibenda. And such is the sinful office of the Cross in Baptism, seeing man hath planted him there for a sign, the heavenly Fathers will is, that he should be rooted out.

#Sect. 31. Objections of the Opposites: The Cross is sooner to be used in that it teacheth good things, and hath a profitable signification: therefore every ceremony is significant, or else vain: that the Lord delighted much in signs which the woman shown, and blamed Simon for not showing the like, &c.

HOwbeit our Opposites lack not a painting to make it seem even fair and beautiful. They tell us the Cross is the sooner to be used in that it teacheth good things, and hath a profitable signification. Hereupon it is objected (first of all) that every ceremony is significant, or else vain; that our Lord delighted much in signs which the woman shown; and blamed Simon▪ for not showing the like: and that the kneeling, knockinge of the breast, and the lifting up of the eyes, are all of them signs which signify somewhat. At a word, that no ceremony can add a decency to God's worship unless it signify. And is there any answer expected to so gross a paralogisme, and so willful an ignorance of the Elench? For we dislike not all signs, but only such as are Symbolical, of which the sign of the Cross is one, but these forenamed are none. For seeing God hath reserved to himself all authority to ordain the seals and signs of his own Covenant, we are worthily jealous against all other signs, in cause they be Sacramental.

Now what is a Sacramētall sign? For the understanding hereof we must consider that some signs are Nata only, some only data, some nata and data both, and these are Sacramental, as Bellarmine truly deduceth out of Augustine and others. It being so, our Opposites wander from the question, when they talk of kneeling knocking of the breast, and lifting up the hands in prayer, because these are not signs Sacramental, of which the question is, but signs natural: witness this they are common to all men of what Religion soever they be. And this our neighbor churches see who use the former signs of knocking, kneelinge, lifting, who yet renounce all Crosses and crossings, and all Simbolicall signs of popery. Upon the same string do our Opposites jar when they prove man may ordain the sign of the Cross in the service of God, because Paul approveth the sign of avayle to show the subjection of the wife unto the Husband. For what have we to do with this sign which is not Sacramental, but Artificial, which Paul (we see) proveth to agree with the Law of nature, and so doth the Canon Law it self. Again, our Opposites wander from the question when they tell us, that man may ordain signs for order and decency, as a fair cloth on the communion table, is a sign of reverence, and the ringing a Bell is the sign of a Sermon. What have we to do with these signs again, which are not Sacramental, but merely Artificial? not Simbolica, but mare indicantia? not signifying but showing only. What aptness have these signs of their own nature to intimate these things? sure none at all, neither could they be signs of them more then an Ivy-bushe is of it self a sign of wine, had not institution of man ordained them to this purpose. Neither of these signs then are within the Question as the sign of the Cross is, which way be thus demonstrated. Two things are required to a Sacramental sign, the first is, that it have by nature some analogy, and relation to the thing it signifieth. Secondly, that this Analogy and reverence be but confuse apta quidem us significet, sed acta non significans nisi humana institution determinetur. For ensample, the particular Image of Titius is no Sacramental sign but natural, because the similitude is so vehement, that of it self it representeth him. The Image that hath but the general shape of a man, is no sign of Titius more then of Gaius. Yet when it is determined by the painter to be the Image of Titius, whose name he writeth underneath it to restrain it unto him, now it a sign of Titius, not merely natural, nor merely artificial, but in the middle between both (or mixed of both rather) that is, Symbolical: So fareth it with the sign of the Cross. The Cross is a similitude of a man crucified, as the Jesuit teacheth truly. Heereby he is of nature apt to represent any one man crucified, Peter, Andrew, or whosoever. The Churches determination cometh and restraineth him to the son of man Christ Jesus crucified, and is he not now a Sacramental signifier of him? Yes, as well as the member of generation was a sign of original sin in the Sacrament of circumcision. This member hath Analogy to the propagation of it, because it is an instrument of propagation. The very same habitude and relation hath the Cross to the death of Christ. For was it not an instrument of it? Gideon's Ephod had no natural fitness to represent the God that gave him victory; but the sign of the Cross hath as good to represent Christ's death: because it is an instrument of his death as well as the Ephod was an instrument of God's worship. The Emperor of Ae • hiopia when he goeth forth, hath a Cross carried before him, and an earthen pitcher full of earth: the one signifying his profession, the other his mortality. Hath this pitcher of earth a Symbolical signification? Then hath the sign of the Cross as well. For it is only by the adjunct or effect of mortatalitie that he Symbolizeth with the same, and a Metonimicall Symbolizer, the Cross is as well as he. The Egyptians for a monument of Joseph's feeding them with corn, set up an Ox by his Toumbe: which was the cause (as Augustine thinketh) that the Jews chose the figure of an Ox in the wilderness. Now look what Analogy this Ox had to represent the husbandry of Joseph, and the same hath the Cross to represent the death of Christ: it being an instrument thereof as well as the Ox was an instrument of Joseph's husbandry. This Joseph is called Bos Dei, by God himself, and his feeding of Egypt with corn, is represented in Pharaohes dream by seven fat Kine, because in Egypt they were the instruments of husbandry, as Josephus telleth us. The Romans also honored Minucius, aureo boue, when he retained them in time of dearth. all which make clear that a figure drawn from the instrument is Symbolical, and so by consequent prove the Cross to be Symbolical, it being an instrument of Christ's death which it representeth to us. The beasts that were worshipped in Egypt had Symbolical relation sufficient to represent their God's, because they were the badges of them which they bore in their banners, while they were alive. How much more hath the Cross a relation sufficient to Christ's death seeing he more nearly pertains unto it: then these beasts did to the men whom they resemble? How is the serpent apt to figure Christ crucified, but by the poale on which he is hanged, which figured the Cross the nearest instrument of his crucifying? What need more a do? such aptness hath the Cross to signify the crucifying of Christ, as that the Fathers, yea Scriptures themselves use by the name of the Cross to describe his death, even as the Canon of the Cross it self confesseth. No marvel, the one being the Suppositum; the other the Appositum (as Bellarmine speaketh) which are so nearly linckt together as that the one may very well stand for the other. Figura Christi est, quae ducit ad Christum argurtiue. Now what argument hath quicker passage then that which cometh from such a subject to such an adjunct? But Sacramental signs are similitudinary. True, but there is a similitude Metonimicall, as well as Metaphoricall, which Metaphoricall similitude is not wanting in the Cross, neither as those words of Aquinas show insignitur signo Crucis, sicut miles signo ducis. They shall have their Fathers name written in their forheades. This hath allusion to the sign of the Cross (say some) which is not so, but to the writing of the Emperors mark and name in the flesh, yea foreheads of those who were pressed to war, until the writing of it in the forehead was by the Law forbidden. Howbeit, as soldiers are separated to their Emperor by his mark, so are men set apart unto Christ, to fight under his banner by the sign of the Cross. The very word token [we sign him with the sign of the Cross in token, &c.] showeth that the Cross is used as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 à figura à typus; all which the Scriptures, Fathers, our selves appropriate to a Sacramental signifying. To conclude (then) as there are words merely indicant which show, & words figurative which signify: so are there signs mere indicantia which show, and signs symbolical which signify, and a man may determine the first, but not the latter: even as we were told by Thomas and Cajetan in part before. Now this power to determine signs indicant, whether it be a devising or no I will not dispute, it may seem man may only in the service of God dispose. It is apparent he cannot devise any of the natural indicant signs mentioned before, but dispose them only. As for the signs which are artificial and depend on man's institution, in this sense he is only a disposer of them, & not a deviser in that he is tied to such as are decent in use already. So that he may not devise any new ceremony against common decency: witness Paul, who taketh not upon him to approve the veil before he hath proved it decent, and who beateth down every contrary rite to this. It is not decent in common practice, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, which now fighteth strongly against the Cross and Surplice: because where are they used out of our Church? And this may suffice for this first objection.

#Sect. 32. The second objection of the Opposites, There be many similitudes in scripture drawn from God's creatures, which employ so many signs, &c.

THe second telleth us, there be many similitudes drawn in the Scriptures from God's creatures which employ so many signs. which doth warrant us to use God's creatures not only to uses natural, but ad significationes etiam, & ad pias admonitiones. First the Cross and Surplice quatenus talia are no creatures of God, but of Antichrist rather: which, will he endure as signs determined in his covenant? Secondly, God's creatures show him, but signify him not: that of Antony is famously known: The Theater of the world is my book: and a book teacheth indicantly, not Sacramentally. So that our writers will hence conclude, that having natural images, we need neither artificial nor Sacramental to be devised. Thirdly, though in civil use, yet not in the Church, may the Alegories and similitudes of the Scriptures be painted, seeing [dicere] and [pingere] are so [imparia] as that the words themselves of Scripture (in some men's judgment) must not be painted on the Church walls, because that place serveth for the preaching not for the painting of them. Swerue we from this, and suffer the Papist to overrun us, who hath chosen the best Similitudes that are in the Scripture, to paint and act them in God's service. He putteth salt into the mouth of the Baptized to act the similitude of salt used in the Scripture, and this rite is very ancient, for August. mentioneth it: signabor signo eius & condiebar eius sale. and Origen alludeth unto it when he willeth men to prepare themselves [ vt fiant sal domini. ] and not be Baptized like Simon Magus. He hath incense to act these words: Let my prayer ascend as the incense, and we spread abroad the savor of life. He hath lamps which he putteth into the hands of the Baptized, to act the parable of the virgins lamps, and other similitudes of light in the Scripture. and the light is (also) ancient, as being used in the days of Nazianzen. He hath a white garment which he putteth upon the body of the Baptized, to act the wedding garment and the armor of light, and the keeping of garments pure, and other similitudes of the same stamp. the antiquity of which ceremony needeth no prove. And to what ende? for through this liberty of acting similitudes out of the scripture in God's service, it is come to pass, that there is nothing now without signification. no part of the Church, but it is a sign of somewhat. the shutting of the door; the coming in; the going to the deske, &c. have all of them their significations. yea without the church and all, scarce anything is free for us to behold, not as a sign; witness the Cock that standeth on the steeple to act the crowing of Peters cock, to put men in mind of awaking to repentance. Now what is that which our Cross blundreth? the scripture it self useth the name of the Cross to express Christ's death, therefore we may use the figure of it to act what Christ speaketh? Then are the Papists just and righteous, & we must no more cry out against them for any of their forenamed actings. There are no better similitudes to be chosen out of the scripture then those which they do act already. If those be not lawful, none are lawful. if none, then not the acting of the Crosses similitude neither. Augustine telleth us that Christ in the scripture is compared to a Bull, propter virtutem Crucis cuius cornibus impios ventilauit. Jerome is very often to prove, that where the word horn in the old testament is spoken of Christ, there he figureth the Cross. This being granted, let this position hold, it is lawful to act what the scripture speaketh by way of figure and similitude, and it will be found as warantable, as the sign of Christ's death, to put a pair of Bulls horns upon the forehead of the baptized. A red thread by this reason will be found as warrantable as the sign of the Cross for life, not only because the Fathers make Rahabes red thread a sign and figure of Christ's death, but also because former times have in Baptism used it accordingly to this ende, together with the Cross.

#Sect. 33. The third objection of the Opposites: There be diverse signs added in the scripture by man lawfully as the knife of stone, &c.

THirdly, it is objected, That there be diverse signs found in the scripture added by man lawfully. First (say our Opposites) what say ye to the knife of stone added by Joshua or the Jews to the Sacrament of Circumcision with a symbolical signification, for he signified Christ our rock and corner stone. First, there is no comparison between this knife and the cross, because the cross is a sign of state by it self, whereas the knife was an instrument of the sign of Circumcision, and so by consequent no more an addition then the silver pipe which lay men used in the sacrament of the Supper, as the statute of the Carthusians showeth, which was, they should possess nothing but a silver cup and a pipe of silver qua laici dominicum absorbeant sanguinem. Secondly, There was never added a knife of stone to the sacrament of Circumcision but it was always a knife of iron as Justinus Martyr witnesseth. But the text calleth them knives of stone. The Chaldee paraphrast interpreteth giadiolos acutos, as well he might. For what is here a knife 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Septuagint, or ex petra acutus as the ordinary gloss. At a word, what is the knife of stone, but a knife of the whet-stone: that whet-stone which may not be sold by the civil law to an enemy under pain of death, it is so fit to sharpen. But what shall we say to the Fathers (then) who make this knife of stone a figure of Christ? who say more over that Circumcizion was on the 8. day to figure out Christ's resurrection. Why, as it is pertinancy in them who defend this stony knife though they do it because they are loath to loose that figure of Christ which the Fathers have placed in it, so now it will be partinacie for thee to defend the sign of the Cross in Baptism for that significations sake wherewith the Fathers dignify it. Alas, thou must consider how playfull they were in their significations. and thou mayest easily see from hence what little hurt it is to loose the fond figures they have devised.

The second sign added by man (which our Opposites do allege) is the Altar of Jordan bancke. The altar of the two Tribes and an half was lawfully added to the Altar of the Temple (say they) therefore the Church may lawfully add the sign of the Cross to the water of Baptism. First let me reason a little better: The Altar like to that of Damascus, was added unlawfully in the Temple: and the Altar of the high places was an unlawful addition likewise: therefore the addition of the sign of the Cross to the sign of the water, is unlawful altogether. Secondly, who lamenteth not to see how gross our Opposites are grown? For what coherence in this argument, what coincidence in these two signs? For neither was the Altar of the two Tribes in state religious as the Cross is, nor in use. it was civil in the judgment of the most learned of our Opposites. Or if it were to an holy use, yet not to the same for which the Altar of the temple served. The Tribes had sinned (say our writers) if out of the Temple they had determined an Altar to the same use, for which the Lord had set up one in the Temple already. And since it was out of the temple, it was not in state religious like the Cross. What if it were? It had been but like the Altar which Solomon reared, when Moses Altar could not bear all the sacrifices that were brought. From this Altar it is, that Bellarmine argueth a great deal more strongly, then our Opposites from the other of Jordan bank. The addition of an new Altar added by Solomon, was lawful (saith he) therefore additions of men are lawful to the worshipps of God. How do we answer him? First, this was done upon special warrant, as Solomon was a Prophet who had extraordinary inspiration (say some of our writers) and from these it will follow against Bellarmine and our Opposites, that there is no warrant ordinary in the word to add in any religious use, either Altar, Cross, or any sign else. Secondly, this Altar was added out of the equity, even of Moses law it self (say others) neither was it any addition at all, seeing no new sign of a diverse kind. These put this answer into our mouths: The Altar of Jordan was no such addition, in respect of the kind, as is the addition of the Cross which is a new sign, of a diverse species from the water, to which he is added. Another Altar is set by the old, to this answers not a Cross, set by the water but two Fontes of water, set one by the other, when one of them doeth not suffice, that which in deed is no addition. Thirdly, (and last of all) either our Opposites have very bad hap, or else they cannot speak one syllable save out of the popish, or Lutheran Grammar. They think it much when they are able to say, that our Cross serveth only for a memorial (even as this Altar did) but a papist frō this place, speaketh as honestly, as they for their lives. The sign of the Cross (saith he) is like this Altar, which the Church proposeth to us, not that we should adore it, but that we should remember the Altar, whereon our Priest (according to Melchizodeches order) offered him self, as a sacrifice for us. And they think they have excuseth their Cross sufficiently from being popish, when they have said, we use him not to the same ende, but in a diuer se manner. But there is a Lutheran, that speaketh as strongly, and as honestly for the Images of his Church: As here the Tribes (saith he) being challenged about this Altar, make answer, they set him not up for sacrifice, but to another ende: so when the Iconomachi challenge us about our Images, we may well excuse out selves in the like manner: We do not set them up to adore them, as papists do, but we use them for monuments only.

The third sign added by man, which our Opposites do allege, is the sign of the Cross added to the Sacrament of the Passover, for as much as it appeareth by Justinus Martyr, the Paschal Lamb was roasted in the form of a Cross. One of my brethren hearing of this, said, that he had often heard of a tale of a roasted horse, but never of a roasted Cross before. This reply will serve the turn. For either the Paschal Lamb was not dressed in form of a Cross, or if it were, it was no typus destinatus: or if it were, it was instituted from the beginning.

#Sect. 34. The 4. sign alleged for the defense of the Cross, is the imposition of hands: and why should not the sign of the Cross be as lawful as it.

THe fourth sign added by man which our Opposites do allege, is the Imposition of hands. why should not the sign of the Cross be as lawful as it (say they). First, as our writers answer the Papists imposition of hands, in the Apostles times was a sign, but not a sacrament, so we answer our adverse brethren. It was a sign merely indicant by institution from God in the Old Testament; by the custom of Christ and his Apostles in the new: whereas the Cross is a sign Symbolical and Sacramental with a word annexed unto it just like the water. Secondly, our writers defend this imposition of hands was ever [ritus liber] whereas we are bound now to the Cross although it want that ensample in the word which this sign hath. Thirdly, whereas the Catechized had the hands laid on them before they were baptized, and thereby were received into the Church, though some differences may be alleged between the sign of the cross and it, yet we hold it superstitious like the Cross which was made in it, and with whom it arose, for the highest mentioner of it is Vincentius Tibaritanus, co-equal with Cyprian, for that counterfeit Dionisius Areopagita who cannot be more ancient. Fourthly, imposition of hands following Baptism, is cancelled by the reformed Churches for the popish abuse thereof: nowhere is it used but in England and in Boheme, where some think it to be tolerable because it hath some profit there, and breedeth no offense. neither of which can be said here of this sign of the Cross. The fifth sign added by man is the [Osculum pacis] which was used in the primitive Church. Which seeing it was lawfully added to the Sacrament of the Supper, why may not the Cross (a like sign unto it) be adiected unto Baptism? First, this went before the very solemnity of the supper, to prepare men to a worthy receiving in love and charity. It had no state in the sacrament it self, as the Cross hath now in Baptism. Secondly, this was a mere natural sign of peace, and not symbolical or sacramental. all the people of the earth use to embrace, and to strike hands, and to kiss, when they will show forth indicant signs of peace and reconciliation. Two men that were enemies join hands together in the Church before they go to the communion table in token of reconciliation. will you make a sacramental sign of this? or will you say it is an addition to the sacrament or affirm the sign of the Cross is no worse, nor no more an addition then it? but now the kiss of the primitive Church was such: men joined hands in it: men embraced one another in it; as Chrysostom telleth us: and these verses of Paulinus: Tunc ambo nexi ad invicem dextras damus. In osculo pacis sacrae, &c. Quisquisne tibi ( saith Jerome ) invitus communicate? quisquamne extensa manu vertit faciem & inter sacras apulas Iudae osculum porrigit? So is this kiss a sign of Love, as the turning away of the face is a sign of hatred, that is, a natural indicant sign, & not symbolical or sacramental like the Cross. Thirdly, what is now become of this kiss? It is cast forth of the Church. Wherefore? because it was abused. for it begat in popery the kissing of a table, which had the Image of Christ, or of some saint in it (called the Paxe. ) and wherefore was it turnde at first into the kissing of this Paxe? why, for the same reason, that kissing of men and women together was forbidden before, ne recti specie aliquid libidinis diabolico afflatu irrepat. Alas then for us, who cannot even by this learn to abolish the sign of the Cross, less ancient, less profitable, more abused: it self having begotten a worse Idolatry? no, though it be needful to abolish it, not only to prevent ne quid irrepat, but also to remedy that which is crept in already. Now, besides this kiss before the Communion, there was one given to the party baptized before his baptism, about which we need be no more careful then about the exsufflation which went immediately before it: or the salt that followed after it: and as it quickly vanished away, so I would it had taken the Cross away with it; it could not have had better company. Thus far of the sin of the Crosses office which it doeth bear in Baptism, where we use it for a symbolical and a sacramental sign. There follow now the offices which he performeth to Baptism, which are in number 4.

#Sect. 35. Four offices which the Cross performeth in Baptism.

THe first is to consecrate the water thereof, to make it effectual▪ whereof if we be ashamed, why loath we not the rest as well? seeing this office is as ancient as they are. What though it be fathered upon Augustine by some? Is Augustine nobody? but we may fetch it a great deal higher, as these words of Cyprian show: Oportet mundari & sanctificari aquam prius à sacerdote vt possit Baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere. The second is to procure reverence to Baptism ne putetur esse communis ablutio. Which is the office of the salt, the taper, and the rest of popish signs, which how cut we of, but with this axe that beheadeth the Cross as well Non existimandum, &c. We must not think but that the baptism of Christ and of the Apostles was performed with reverence enough when these signs were wanting: neither must we take upon us to be wiser then they. To procure right reverence to the Sacrament is to lay open the institution by the preaching of the word, and then to deliver it in that simplicity in which we have received it. To add signs over and above, is not to honor it but to defile it. In deed had not the Ark been more honorably entreated, if it had been sent home again as it came into the lande and hand of the Philistines. They thought they could not honor it sufficiently, unless they set a budget by it of certain new devised signs to wait upon it which did defile it. David emptied this budget, & did well. Howbeit, their cart he thinketh cannot well be spared, for which the Lord made a breach in Israel, until he drave him to confess that he was not sought in due order, as long as one ceremony of the Philistines did remain. The Lord show mercy to our Church, otherwise he will show that our emptying of the popish budget in banishing the salt, the oil, the spittell with the rest, will not be judged sufficient, unless we cease also with a Cross of theirs to cart Baptism, which should be borne up to reverence, no other way thē by the shoulders of the Levites, I mean the labors of those preachers which now (alas) lie in the dust, because they will not defile their hands by touching of this Philistine-carte, for to uphold it. The third office of the Cross which he performed to Baptism, is to drive away the Deull, Ne inpediat effectum Sacramenti, for which, why is he not himself driven away, as well as we have scattered into the wind the flatus of the exorcism, seeing he is simbolum magica in • antationis as well as it in the eyes of all good writers: The fourth & the last office of the Cross which it performeth to Baptism, is to put us in mind of our vow therein, and that in the instant of every temptation that so we may keep our selves from sin. what, and serveth the sign of the water (then) for the time only of the perfusion? or must we needs have a sign of a sign? If so, Then how many, and to how many degrees I ask? For if a new sign of a Cross be needful to put us in mind of the water, then holy water (a new sign) is needful too, both of it and of the Cross, why do papists keep holy the dedication day of every Church? Why to the same ende, that we use the Cross, (to wit) to put themselves in mind of their Bapt. whē they were washed & whē they were crossed to be dedicated an holy Temple to the Lord. But to the holy water again which was no rather mentioned. There was once a fellow that carried about holy water to put mē in mind of their Baptism, & therefore whē he sprinkled it, he was wont to say, memineris te esse baptizatum. This man all wise men laughed at. howbeit, whereas Bellarmine allowed this course for good, non negarem per aquam benedictam refricari memoriam Baptismi & admoneri Christianos vt cogitent se aliquando per aquam purgatos fuisse & pactum cum Deo contra Diabolum inijsse. how shall we answer him, alwhile our selves do use the Cross, a sign that is more unfit to the very same purpose? More unfit (say our Opposites) how can that be, seeing the cross is ever ready at hand to stay us from sliding even in the instant of the temptation, which other signs are not? Excellent. For now at last I perceive it was for somewhat that Anselm telleth us, Christ chose rather to die by a Cross, then by a sword or a stone, or by any other instrument, that we might have always a weapon ready against Satan: to wit, the sign of the same Cross: whereas all mē cannot have always ready a stone or a sword against him. But what (now) shall we do with those writers of ours, that besides the two Sacraments condemn all signs though never so fit in the eyes of carnal wisdom? when Martial citeth out of August. Crucem nobis dominus reliquit in memoriam passionis Master Calfhill replieth, the word and the Sacraments are memorials sufficient. We must not devise signs to our selves (saith another) but use such as God hath appointed. There were some that to move the people the more, brought pictures with them into the pulpit, whom we have on this ground censured. The word being the ordinance of God sufficient, all these additions of signs sensible are vain and superfluous: upon the same ground it is that we condemn the sign of ashes upon Ashwendsday, which Gregory the great brought in not without pretence of great antiquity, seeing it was used by men (we know) anciently in their mourning. Last of all, in the year. 1420. one Bernardinus à Minorite, carried about the name Jesus painted in a table, which he used to show to the people to put them in mind of Christ. This Martin the fist condemned in his consistory, not only as superstitious, but also as scandalous, giving occasion to worship the Characters rather then Christ, which is just the Crosses cause. I would know how we can use the Cross to put us in mind of our vow in Baptism, seeing the common Crossing of the people is forbidden by writers. They only forbid the superstitious crossing (you will say,) so said Harte Jerome only forbiddeth the superstitious bearing of the Cross in the boosom. But as it was replieth to him [all bearing it, there is superstitious] so is all using of it here. This will not our Opposites hear of; who object to the contrary that the ancient Fathers draw an argument for the ceremony of the Cross, when they exhorted to constancy. First, the Fathers make the sign of the Cross operative in this their arguing: Thus Leo: Hi non erant digni confession filij & patris, quibus nunc caro Christi verecundiam facit, probabuntque se nullam de signo Crucis sumpsisse virtutem qui quod preferendum frontibus acceperunt, promere labijs erube scunt. Thus Cypriā. Arm yourselves (saith he) with all boldness, that this sign of God may be kept safe. where the former parte of the exhortation being thus, never let the hand that hath received the body of Christ, offer sacrifice to Idols: he matcheth the Cross with the bread of the Supper preferreth it before the water of Baptism, in whose rome the Cross is mentioned. Secondly, when the Fathers draw an argument of exhortation from the Cross, they call us not to a new crossing at the instant of the temptation like Master Hooker; they only will us to call to mind the Cross received once in Baptism. And in this manner they drew exhortations from other rites, which yet notwithstanding we have abandoned. Doeth not Dionisia exhort hir soon Maioricus to constancy, willing him to remember the pure white garments which in baptism he had received? It was usual in like manner to exhort by calling to mind the oil of baptism, recordare sancti baptismatis myster ium in quo qui initiantur spiritualis vnguenti Chrismate invncti &c. What then? Must we wear white garments still, and bear oil in our boosoms to put us in mind of baptism? But enough of the third sin of this sign in regard of his offices whether in the Sacrament or unto it.

#Sect. 36. The fourth sin that maketh this Cross Sacramentale in these words, we receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock.

THe fourth point which maketh the Cross a sacramentale unlawfully added is the complement of a word wherewith it is graced (to wit) this: We receive this child into the Congregation of Christ's flock, and sign is with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, & manfully to fight under his banner against the flesh, the world, and the Devil, and to continue his faithful soldier unto his lives ende. Herein we cannot deny but that we are past the ancient bounds. We stand on the Fathers, but which of them (tell me) used the Cross with any word annexed unto it, and not rather as a gesture of prayer either explicit or implicit at the least, and that not by it self existent, but subsistent in prayer? Least this should seem strange unto us, we must consider that the sign of imposition of hands was at the first no other (as these words of August. show) Quid est impositio manaum nifi invocatio suprà hominem. And of Tertullian, Dehine manus imponitur per benedictionē aduocans & inuitans spiritum sanctum. And lastly of Jerome, Episcopus ad invocationem spiritus manum impositurus excurrit. The Oil likewise at the first had no word ceremonial annexed unto it: neither was it used without prayer, as now we use the cross. Ambrose witnesseth it had this prayer, Deus omnipotence qui te regenera •• t ex aqua & spiritu sancto, remisit{que} peccata tua, ipse te vngat in vitam aternam. Augustine saith of the cross it self (if the words be his own) hoc facit cum fideli invocation nominis Christi victoriosae Crucis insignita memoria. To conclude, M ^r Bucer wished the words of the Cross were turned to a prayer. Howbeit there be who think the cross the more tolerable even for this words sake, because it declareth to what end we use it, & so distinguisheth it from the cross popish. First, Cassander used this apology, for the consecrating of the water by the cross and for other gross ceremonies: Istae ceremoniae (saith he) mouent hominù animos si accedas interpretatio & intelligentia. Which, while our writers refure as frivolous, we by this sacramētal word which we give unto the cross in practice justify. But by this means the cross becometh signum commonefaciens, and is not mute Not so. For this signum commonefaciens which our writers do approve, is that which speaketh out of the word which the sign of the Cross doth not. When the Gentiles objected that there were many mysteries signified in the histories of their God's, Arnobius replied, Christiano satis est quod scriptū est, & quod auditur, accipe • e. So let the cross speak what mysteries he can, in this his sacramētal word, if he speak not out of the scriptures, we Christians care not for it. M ^r Calvin knew the popish ceremonies do admonish by the word of mā (& the cross doth no more) who (yet) termeth them dumb & separate from doctrine. To Martial objecting That the church had ordained the cross for a remembrance of Christ's passion. D. Fulk thus replieth: Christ committed to the prelates the government of his church to feed it with his word, & not with dumb signs and dead jmages, such as he hath forbid̄. Have we not here the Cross termed [A dumb sign] & no teacher, because he speaketh out of the mouth of the Prelates of the church only? Secondly, what though the addition of this word did open the mouth of the Cross and make him a teacher? this helpeth not as longe as he is a superfluous reacher, and a teacher that is unlawful. Superfluous he is, because the common plea against Images lieth flat against him. Quod sierudiunt vel absque interpret id faciunt vel opus habent iuterprete. absque interpret mutae sunt. Quod si autem verbis docendum est, poteru id absque ijs commodi • is fieri. He is also a teacher unlawful. God will not have his Church taught by the Devil. and the sign of the Cross is a Devil. Who will have his child taught by a papist? but the sign of the Cross is popish. In the third place, he is a teacher insufficient. When Mariall affirmeth that Images teach like the word, and the word becometh a scandal to diverse as well as Images: D. Fulke replieth that the scriptures do plainly condemn the errors and vice to which they are wrested: whereas Crosses and Images do not for. Although then it be true, what this Sacramental word of the Cross doeth teach yet it cannot be approved as long as it teacheth insufficientlie: and do not like the scripture condemn the vices and the errors to which his word is arrested In that monument of the Cross which Costantine the great sat up, this word was annexed [ ne • s vinae which, though it were good, yet did it hurt, men hereby grew into a conceit that the Cross was a chosen instrument of Christ, to overcome by. which eftsoons falleth out in the word of our Cross. Because (like the scripture) it doeth not pretend all occasions of such error▪ neither teacheth any one lesson against the same. So far of the word of the Cross in general. Now to the form in which it speaketh, and to the matter what.

The form cannot be denied to be Sacramental, like unto these, vngo te oleo, I anoint thee with oil. Consignote signo sanctae Crucis, & Chrismo te oleo salutis. I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and anoint thee with the oil of salvation. Compare with these, the form how our Cross doeth speak, We receive: We sign, &c. speaks it not as the popish Oil speaketh in Baptism, and in the sacrament of Confirmation: to partake with the iniquity of them? It may be added, it speaketh like the water in Baptism (I Baptize) to steal away the honor of it. As for the Quidditi which some have light on, the Minister saith not [I sign] &c. as he saith in the water [I Baptize] but [We receive, and we sign] it maketh no material difference, as a gross papist him self will yield: in hac forma [Ego] non est plane necessarium: Et si commutetur in (Nos) non vitiatur forma. But when the Book saith (We receive) it speaketh in the person of the Congregation. And speaketh it in the person of the Minister only, when it saith, [I Baptize]? If it do, the Minister may say [We Baptize] if he list you see, and so take in the Congregation. But this is the very same miserable shift which is used when men excuse the infantes Credo & volo Baptizari, when yet he hath neither any faith, nor desire to be baptized. Forsooth he speaketh not this (say some) in his own person, but in the person of the Congregation. Which, how like you? is it not acute like the other? Be they spoken in whose person they may be, the words are still sacramental, uniting the Cross to the other partes, and to the other actions of the sacrament, as both the precedencies and the sequencies show. Before the Book maketh request for the Infantes that are to be dedicated to God by our office and ministry. Compare these words with the Canon that telleth us, the child baptized is dedicated to God by the sign of the Cross which followeth them. After, the Book directeth us to give thanks that the child is received into the Congregation. Compare these with the words of the Cross to which they have relation, yea which they repeat, and whereby the infant was received: and tell me whether the Book doeth not incorporate the sign of the Cross into the Sacramental actions: seeing this, it combyneth and knittes it to them both, à priori and à posteriori, as it were with a couple of strong cords, never to be unloosed by them who say, the Cross cometh after Baptism, and if not morallie, at the least a part thereof: unless they take up the sword of Alexander (that which already they begin to do): to cut off with violence, what they cannot by art untie.

#Sect. 37. It followeth not because we use the Lord's prayer & Creed in Baptism, that therefore we may use the Cross. For the word Cross implieth 3. senses contrary to the word.

FRom the form, come we to examine the matter, when Bellarmine would prone we add in Baprisme the Lord's prayer, and the Creed, and the renunciation as culpably as they the Cross and Oil, he hath these words: neque his repugnat quod or atio domiuica sit in scriptures & simbo lum qu • ad sensum. Nam inscriptur • non habetur or recitetur in Baptism. But we have for addition of the creed and the Lord's prayer the general warrant out of the word, which willeth decency in administering of the Sacrament: whereas the Cross is in double transgression. First; Non habetur in Scriptures that he and his word should be used in Baptism, either by special or general warrant. Then his word is so far from being in scripture [Quoad sensum] as that it implieth three senses which are contrary to the word. First, when i • saith: We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock, and sign him with the sign of the Cross▪ the copulation of this word [and] taketh in the Cross, to have an hand in the childes incorporation, which the Canon beareth before it, when it affirmeth that the sign of the Cross doth serve in Baptism to dedicate the child to Christ. This what is it less, then that which the grosnes of popery it self would countenance by Augustine, per signum Crucis in vtero Ecclesia concepti estis: ^d Per signum Cru •• s suscipit vos mater Ecclesia. Our Church to the contrary, investeth the water unto this honor: Baptismo in Ecclesiam Dei, re • ipimur & à peregrinis omnibus religionibus segregamur, vt pote illi soli cōsecrati cuius symbola & insignia gestamus. Secondly, when the words of the Cross say in token he may not be ashamed to fight under his banner against the Devil, and they make the Cross to be the banner of Christ's soldiers: if not to confirm them to the fight, yet out of question to make them known. Which, have we it anywhere taught in the scriptures? First, saith Bellarmine calleth for adoration to the Cross, even for this, because it is Christ's Banner (for we may not come short of the heathen saith he) we must as well adore the banner of our Christ, as they adore the military banners of their Emperors▪ me thinks it is an hard thing for us, to confirm them in this Idolatry with such an acknowledgment as that it is indeed his banner. Secondly, it hath ever ben a quarrel between our writers & the papists that the Cross is no banner of Christ's soldiers, no not so much as by it to make them known. Martial affirmeth that the Cross is Christ's banner Master Calfhill denieth it, and he is thus seconded by Doctor Fulke. Further you say the note, that the material Cross is no Ensign of Christ, hath simple proof, but (indeed) your assertion that it should be the ensign of Christ hath no prove at all. And again: That Cassiodorus & Lactantius spake of the sign of the Cross it is granted, but because they speak of it besides the book of God▪ Master Calfhill doth well to disprove their reasons, as where Cassiodore compareth the sign of the Cross, upon the faithful to the Princes stamp on the coin▪ the comparison is naught, for the sign of the Cross which is upon hypocrites showeth them not to be Christ's servants. Neither did Christ give any such outward sign, by which they should be known who would profess themselves to be his servants but only Baptism. To the last foot of his sentence there is another that fetteth Quin potius m • mi • eyimus, &c. we must remember that we were by baptism made the soldiers of Jesus Christ, to fight under his banner against the Devil. Thirdly, not only to make Christ's soldiers known, but also to strengthen them in the warfare do the words of the Cross make him their ensign and their banner. When one of our writers bendeth himself to shake the power of confirmation, he speaketh thus: They deprive Baptism of the proper use thereof, which is a sign to us of the assistance of God's spirit, to sight manfully against the Devil: Now Baptism be a sign of our victory against the Devil, yet they rob Baptism of his honor, and give it to Confirmation. I care not for the quint-essential interpretations which some have distilled of late, these words (in token, he shall not be ashamed to fight, but continue his faithful soldier) do in the intent of the authors of our communion book, and in common construction make the Cross a sign of the assistance of God spirit to fight manfully against the Devil, so that the Cross doth prejudice Baptism even as confirmation doth. Indeed confirmation speaketh no otherwise their the Cross, the cross no otherwise thē it: signantur confirmandi Chrismate sig •• Crucis in fro •• d, vt in manifesto ostendant se Christianos esse. Et ne nomen Christi ob timorem vei • r ubessentiam praetermittant. Again, Ideo in front vbi verecondiae sedes est confirmand •• in vngitur ne Christi nomen confiteri erubescat, et praecipue crucem eius propr • r quod c • ucis signo signatur. Compare with these words: in token he be not ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Jesus crucified, savor they not of the same spirit? speak they not the same languadge? may not the same Dialect of Rome be most easily discerned in both?

#Sect. 38. The Opposites saying that the Cross is the sign of Christ crucified, confuted.

THe third doctrine which the word of the cross bringeth in, is that it is the sign of Christ crucified. Which, where have we in the scripture, unless in the places which papists cite, which our writers long since have proved to mean the word and the Sacraments joined with the inward seal of the spirit, but not the Cross. These places are (Isaiah. 49.22.) whence they prove the Cross to be Christ's standart. (Jer. 4.6.) whence they prove it to be Christ's banner. Ezech. 9.4. whence they prove it to be Christ's mark. Apoc. 7.3. whence they prove it to be Christ's sign Ephes. 1.13. whence they prove it to be Christ's seal. Math. 24.30. whence they prove it to be the sign of the son of man. Now so distressed is the cause of the Cross, as that our Opposites are not ashamed to cite some of these places of the papists for it: that which (indeed) Master Hooker himself was ashamed once to do, who no doubt considered that if it be a shame for papists to cite for the Cross, those places of scripture which Valentinus the heretic cited (as our writers object unto them): that thē it is an utter shame for any Protestant to defend a cross as different frō the popish, & yet to be able to bring no diverse scripture for it. Again, we cry out against the papists for citing scriptures for the Cross, because it is held by their own Church to be a traditiō that bath no ground at all in scripture: as Quae scriptura salutiferae Crucis signaculo fideles docuit insign • r • (saith their canon law itself.) But our Opposites may not in this case cry out against them, the beam is in their own eye, who join with the basest of the papists, to prove the sign of the Cross by scripture, against the principal lights of our Church, who though they grant the Cross it self is prefigured in the old Testament, and named in the new, to describe the curse of our Lord's death, and the merit thereof, yet stand out strongly against his sign of it, that it is neither prefigured not mentioned from the beginning to the end, much less mentioned with so honorable a style, & tittle as to be counted the sign of Christ. Nay our writers go further, they tell us the scriptures will not fuffer us to use the cross for a sign of Christ. O happy age of ours (then) that hath found out what never could be found before, to wit, that there be scriptures that do warrant it, what might they be? The first that is stood on (by our Opposites) is Ezech. 9.4. where when the Angel preserveth from destruction by setting T. in the forehead of the faithful, the sign of the Cross in the forehead is made (say they) or alluded unto; for thus (now) they reason, jump with Bellarmine and with Martial, and with the rest of the papists. First it is not the letter T but Tau the word that is here used, which signifieth a sign, so that the Angel is said only here to set a mark or a sign in their foreheads: as in Apoc. 7.3. & 9.4. So doth the Septuagint render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do Aquila & Symmadus; so do the Fathers take it for signum indeterminatum, and for quodcunque signum. There be learned papists themselves, that either cite this place in their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew Tau doth signify a sign; or leave it indifferent between the letter T. & the word. But Theodosion understandeth the letter. No, but leaveth only the word Tau untranslated, as he doth the word Baddim, a little before, and as his manner is to do in every word which he taketh to be mystical. Now what is this to the Cross? sure no more then the Tau, which some say, was set on Cain, neither doth the Angel make Crosses here more then David made crosses on Achis his gates for the word Tau is used there as well as in this place. The Tau that was set on Cain and preserved him (say some of our Opposites) was but a praeludium to those other which should figure the salvation of Christ's Cross: but (me thinks) the text showeth plainly enough what Cain's mark was, to wit, these words engraven in his flesh, he that killeth Cain shall be revenged 7. sold: for (to omit all other reasons) how else could this promise be so famous as by Lamech the profane we see it was? And the Crosses which David, may be concluded by this reason, to have scraped on Achis door, are they for the Crosses credit too? who is censured by the Church, as a poor and miserable man, for the making of them? for these Taues preserved him too, even as the Cross preserves now a days many a Minister fat, and shining in his benefice, howsoever before the Lord they are poor and miserable that do make him, especially they that do make him for fear of their living, as David made his Taues and marks for fear of life. But to conclude, it is here the word Tau that signifieth signum in general, which cannot be restrained to the sign of the Cross of all other signs, because during the time of the Old Testament, it was held and esteemed execrable: as a papist himself confesseth.

#Sect. 39. Though Tau were in the text, yet cannot a Cross be colleleth from it, unless we ground doctrine upon the mysteries of Letters, which the Gnostickes, Valentinians, and the Cabalistes use.

SEcondly, what if the letter T. be in the text, yet cannot a Cross be collected hence without wringing and churning, yea without parte of that vanity also of grounding doctrines upon the mysteries of letters which the Gnostic heretics, & the Valētinians, & the Cabalistes use, & the papists themselves condemn. All the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet are mystical (saith Jerome ) who holdeth not this position vain? yet is it the ground whereupon the Cross is foundded in this place, and that by this mystical Jerome, who yet resolveth not on the matter but rather rehearseth what the opinions of others ar, as these words show, et us ad mostra veniamus: and his whole drift, not in this place only, but in all his commentaries: in which as he telleth his reader elsewhere, he writeth rather out of the opinions of other men, then out of his own judgment. And when he explicateth the sign here meant by the words of Solomon, pone me sicut signum, Cant. 8. of David: signatum est super nos Iumen vultus tui. Psal. 4. and of Paul: Nolite contristari spiritum à quo signati estis, it is plain that some of the authors, whom he followed, understood this sign to be spiritual & not an outward mark, which is the • enent of all our writers. If our Opposites have found out since the sign of an outward Cross in this place, I would they would tell us which way they came by it. The Maccabees in their banner used the first-letter of the words in Exod. 15.11. M. C. B. I. to express the whole sentence. Is this cours • here used? Then by the letter T. what more likely to be meant then the word Torah which signifieth the Law; to show the men here preserved, were such as kept the Law; and bewailed the transgressions which were committed against it which was the opinion of the Jews as Jerome mentioneth, and which conlecture some p • pistes with others cannot reject. In the Apoc. the situation of α and ω in the Alphabet is used to describe the Lord Christ Jesus to be the beginning and the end. Is this course here taken? then what more likely by the letter T. the last consonant to be meant then either Christ the end of all (as some) or the perfection of knowledge taught by Christ (as others) or perfection of science in the men here signed (as others) or a perfection of obedience in them as human frailty did permit. Last of all, the figures of letters were respected by Pythagoras when he described the life of man by the letter Y. and by the officers of war, when T. noted the living ☉. the dead and slain, because this letter hath the form of a men thrust thorough, as it were with a dart. It were hard to say the holy Ghost taketh this course here. But what if he do? For a papist him self confesseth, longe falluntur opinione qui asserunt hanc literam apud Hebraeos crucem esse, nullam enim habet crucis figuram. Ita. n. scribitur ∩. which maketh a fair pair of gallows in deed, but cometh nothing near a Cross Hence it is, that the chief defenders of this opinion waver much; as is to be seen in one of them for all the rest. Fuit signum T. nifallor, (mark ni fallor ) figura Crucis. But it is objected out of Jerome, that the old Hebrew T. had the form of a Cross like to the Greek, that this ∩ which now hath not the form of a Cross, was changed by Ezrah, witness this, that the Tau of the Samaritans, who kept the old Hebrew letters, was of the Crosses form. First, it is unlikely that Ezrah would leave to the Samaritans, the enemies of God the ancient characters of God's own finger wherein the Oracles of God were written, & put the Church to new. Secondly, though he changed in other places, yet not here, because the fashion of this T. being marred, the mystery was marred which depended upon it. which he (no question) understood, if there were any such. Thirdly, It is untrue that the old Samaritan T. was a cross. Postellus telleth us it was of another fashion. a man in this matter to be rather believed then they, who cannot tell how to refer it, whether to this figure ✚. as some, or to this T. out of Tertullian, as others which by some is called the Greek T. by others the Roman T. Others say Ezekiel had reference to the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman, and all. as Friar Billing, Parson of Wilton at the burning of Spicer and Maundrell at Sarum. Fourthly, there is no agreement about Ezrahes exchaunge of the Hebrew letters. One affirmeth, there was a change a while, but after, a return to the old letters again. Rabbi Simon denieth that ever there was any change at all. Rabbi Moses Gerundensis saith, The change of them was at the first Division of the Kingdom in the days of Rhehoboam, to differ frō the ten Tribes that were grown Idolatrous. The most common opinion is, that Ezra changed them immediately upon the return from Babylon, to differ from the Samaritans. But all this is stricken dead in the nest by Caesar Baronius, who lahoureth to prove that Ezra never changed the letters: that the old ancient Copies of the Hebrew Bibles were many of them remaining in Ezralies time. that they all are in one character (to wit the old and ancient character of the Hebewes. Howbeit Baronius himself sayleth in part, the whole matter is here of late brought cleerlie to light by Joseph Scaliger, who writeth thus: The old Hebrew and the Samaritan letters be all one, and the letter Tau in neither of them is like a Cross or the Greek or Roman T. Jerome what he reciteth of Ezraes 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 change & of the old Samaritan Tau, he taketh word by word out of Origen in Romans Origin was deceived by a Jew, on whose bare relatiō he grounded him self: which relation was also false. Whereas Jerome saith elsewhere, he saw a Samaritan copy, that was after he had written this: if before he had seen it, he would have seen Origen's error, and have prevented it in him self. But if there be anything worth the learning in this error, it is this, Jerome and others think it a worthy thing for Ezra to change the letters of the scripture, to the ende that the Church may differ from Samaritans and from aliens, even in their writing. An ensample of like zeal we see in Vlid the Arabian, who when he meant to enlarge the religion of Mahomet, not only rased the churches of the Christians that were in Damascus, but also abolished their very letters. making a law that nothing should be written in Greek but in Arabic only. And when the Christians were after afflicted because they would not menscrizare (that is) conform, who can say but that they stood out against these characters amongst the rest which they refused. What then? We may not conform to the Cross especially in religious use, it being a Character of the beast, but our Church must change it, and make a law against it, if it mean to be zealous after the pattern and proportiō of these examples. Thirdly, let it be the word Tau, or the letter T. let the letter be changed or not changed: all is one, and this one thing is nothing for the Cross. Then are the Fathers nothing, neither (say our Opposites) for they are all of them for the Cross even in this text. But may we not a little chaung the words of Christ, and say to the Fathers in this matter, Men what have we to do with you? even as we are prompted by Doctor Fulke. Master Calfhill (saith he) doth justly reprove the Fathers for so high extolling the sign of the cross which hath no ground in the word of God, but was brought in either by contention against the heathens who despised it, or in emulation of heretics who first used it. We must give the Fathers leave to play, and according to their own pleasure not only to fetch the figure of the Croffe out of this Tau, but also out of the two sticks which the Widow of Sarepta gathered, yea to fetch a Cross and a T. too out of the 300. soldiers of Gedion, who (me thinks) resemble the 300. ministers, who now stand out against the Cross: for that, disdaining to ley down under the burden of an evil conscience to drink at ease the pleasant waters of conformity, they are contented to lapp like dogs the waters of marah, or rather to be used like dogs: surely, no more to be called Naomi (although their gifts and their labors in the Church had made them beautiful) but Marah rather, because the Lord beginning judgment at his own house, hath shown them bitterness. Secondly, what though the Cross be here insinuated, that is nothing to the sign of the Cross in the foreheade, but to Christ's Cross only, on which he died, which is not here insinuated neither for any honor to it self, but for the forshewing of Christ's death, whereof it was the cursed instrument. As for the sign of the forehead mentioned in the Revelation, it is as fondly (after Aquinas, Martial, the Rhemistes, and the rest of that ••• ble) drawn to the aerial figne of the Cross, as this sign of Ezekiel is. For, this sign in the revelation giveth the Spirit of life and faith, so doth not the Cross. this sign maketh a difference between good and bad, so doth not the Cross; this sign in the forehead noteth those who with open forheads should profess the Gospel, even as they, who are not signed in the forehead. verse. 9. note those who should lie hid, and not so openly profess as the former; who yet made the sign of the Cross in the forehead, as well as the former, called to martyrdom and confession, if antiquity be true. Thirdly, what if the sign of the Cross in the forehead, be alluded to in Ezekiel and in the Apocalypse? yet this maketh nothing for the sign of the Cross in Baptism, because it was tolerable in old time, quatenus erat testimonium confessionis in trepida contra ethnicos, not quatenus it was a sign in baptism. Fourthly, Our Opposites that entitle the sign of the Cross to the place of Ezech. and that of the Apoca. the same must needs entitle it to an effective and operative power, for such a power doth the text give to the signs of these scriptures. witness the very Fathers themselves, who thinking these texts to speak of the Cross, conclude out of them that the sign of the Cross doth arm, defend, preserve us. of which error we are ashamed to our shame until we disclaim their interpretation of this scripture, and the obligation of their authority in this question of the Cross.

#Sect. 40. That the sign of the Cross, is not the sign of the Son of man.

THE second scripture which of late we have heard alleged against us, is the 24. chap. of Math. 30. verse. where some of our Opposites will have the sign of the son of man to be the sign of the Cross, even as the Fathers teach. Alas, whether will the Fathers carry them? Because of the Fathers they will believe that a sign of the Cross shall appear in heaven, for a fore-runner of Christ his coming unto judgment. Will they not awake to see that this is no other dream then that which Lactantius dreameth, There shall be a great sword let fall from the heaven into the earth, before Christ's coming unto judgment, for a token and sign thereof? which (me thinks) they are bound to believe, as well as the other. for he hath scripture as good, [ When I come I will send a sword into the earth ]. And howe is it probable that Christ should call that his sign which him self ordained not? which can be no convenient sign of his, because a mere invention of man's: and which he foresaw in time should become an Idol of abomination, and a mark of his enemy the man of sin and perdition? There is (then) no probability for the Cross. is there probability for any thing else? Firste it is thought that by this sign of the son of man, there are meant (by way of Synecd • che ) the great signs of glory & majesty, which then shall compass him round about: and shall omnium oculos convertere ad se, quasi signo dato. which seemeth to have strength from the explication which doeth follow, He shall be seen come in the clouds with power and great glory.

Secondie, it is thought, that as the sign of Circumcision is nothing else but Circumcision it self, so here the sign of the son of man is nothing else, but the son of man him self, as a certain sign that the time is come of the last judgment▪ which receiveth strength by the conference of the other Evangelistes, who in steed of these words [Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man, ] have only these, Then shall the Son of man appear. Neare to this one, Quidam putant Crucem Christi ostendendam esse in coelo: verius autem est ipsum Christum in corpore suo habentem testimonia passionis, (id est) vulnera lanciae & clavorum.

Thirdly, it is thought, that a sign here standeth for a signification of Christ's coming to this sense: These foresaid eventes shall be a certain signification, and (as it were) a sign of my coming. And because the fyring of the heaven and of the earth, is one of the chief of all the rest, therefore chiefly it is accoun •• d to be this sign. I cannot omit the words of one: The sign of the Son of man, is the very same things which Christ foreshowed in the 29. verse, before should fall out in the Sun, Moon, & Stars, and not any other thing. Therefore after Christ had foreshowed the signs that were nearest to his coming, he addeth for conclusion and explication sake, that these signs are the very signs of his coming. And what can be alleged against these things? The Fathers? But they agree not. Bellarmine's mouth runneth over exceedingly, when he saith that the ancient Fathers omnes ad vnum interpret this sign to be the Cross. For Chriso stome thinketh it to be the body of Christ it self. Jerome writeth thus: Signum hic aut Crucis intelligamus. ant vexillum victoriae trium phantis. Beda followeth him in the same words. Theophilacte holdeth the true Cross shall appear whereon Christ died. So doth Sybilla, O lignum faelix in quo Deus ipse pependit. Nec te terra capit, sed coeli tecta videbis. And Thomas Waldensis followeth thē. Abulensis & Jansen are of another opinion. They think it shall be a Cross compacted of glorious & of lightsome air. Now is it likely that the wood of the Cross which hath been so long ago rotten, shall be raised up again in glory? Seeing the promise hereof belongeth to the members of Christ only; who receive it from the power of his own rising? Thirdly, If ihe sign of the son of man be here admitted to be the Cross, the true cross & the crosses image which is material, is here authorised, (which our church hath broken & overthrown) but the aerial sign of the forehead is never the nearer, if our Opposits keep their old ten's still.

#Sect. 41. An answer to the argument of the Opposites which is taken from Visions and Apparitions.

FRom scriptures we must come to Visions and Apparitions whereby God himself from heaven hath shown (say our Opposites) that the Cross is a sign of his sons, and a mark of his own. For when Constantine was in suspense on what God he were best to rely for victory, did not the Cross appear in the air unto him with this subscription, In hoc signo vinces, In this sighe thou shalt overcome. First, this word [sign] is foisted in by a sixth singer. Eusebius naming only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 huic vince. Socrates and others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in hoc vince (to wit) in this Christ. Secondly, It was not the sign of the cross that appeared, but a sight somewhat like it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith the story, made after the fashion of a Cross, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a mark of Christ's name. This mark containeth the two first letters of his name X P. so that the P. was made an X. by crossing as it were a spear a sloope, either after this manner 〈☐〉 or as Lypsius upon the vewe of ancient coins doth draw it thus, 〈☐〉 . The former of these cometh nearest to the description of Eusebius, therefore the latter may be some imitation of it, even as in coins there was a diversity in imitation. Arcadius stamped his coin with a common cross upon a victory which he obtained against the Persians. before which, as the battle was joining, certain crosses appeared on the garments of his soldiers. This stamp (saith the story) grew common to all the world, especially it was used in Asia; and the use of it doth endure unto this day. As the stamp of Arcadius differed frō that of Constantine's, so did the stamp of Theodosius which was X. P. S. which the latter age hath viciously imitated. taking the midlemost for a Roman P. which in Greek is an R. There have ben coin of Magnentius seen with Lypsius his form, which why it might not be an imitation of Constantine's figure rather thē the figure of Constantine him self, I see no manifest reason. But what form soever the two first letters of Christ's name had in Cōstantines days, the letters of his name they wer not (say Papists themselves to which we add not) the cross, which he wore in his helmet, and set in his Labarum, whether it were on the topp, framed of some solid matter or in his flag drawn and embrodered or both these ways in both these places (which I take to be the truest) with this bāner he overcame (without thanks to the cross) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to wit, holding forth the forenamed characters of Christ's name. See you not (then) the cross discorded from this apparition? For whatsoever honor hath accrued to him by the same, it came either from the alchymie of the Bishops in those days, who drew a Cross out of the sight which Constantine saw, or from the sophistry of Papists since.

The Bishops of those days thought it good polity to make Constantine and the world believe, that not only the name of Christ had appeared, but also the cross; as the sight (you see) was somewhat like. Hence is it that Constantine is set up in the for • m at Rome with a Cross in his hand, with this inscription, Hoc salutari signo verac • fortitudinis inditio Civitatem nostram à iugo tyranni ereptam liberavi, & S. P. Q R. liberatum pristino splendori & claritati restitui. Herevpon also they adored labar • m of the Romans is changed to a Cross, to draw the Army to the adoring of Christ the sooner. Yet so, vt vexilli formam non amitteret. It is said by some, the labarum was a Cross before this change, so that the Cross bar whereupon the • lagge did hange seemeth to be the Cross of this Labarum. which though it were there before, yet was it not eminent by the name of a Christian Cross as now it is. Latter ages added the rest of this Labarum, as now Papists do describe it: who also have turned it into a ✚. which now is set over the flag in the room of it in all processions.

#Sect. 42. Answers to the arguments, which the Opposites take from miracles.

FRom Apparitions we must come to Miracles, whereby God hath manifested in the judgment of our Opposites, that the cross is a sign undoubted of his holy fonnes passion. When he would foreshow to Julian that his Gospel should prevail, he did it by a Cross environed with a crown, which he caused to appear unto him in the entrulles of a beast in the midst of his divining. When he would make known to the Jews, his gospel should prevail against them repairing the Temple of Jerusalem to deface it, he did it by certain signs of crosses appearing in the builders garments. Last of all, when he would foreshewe the renewing of his Gospel by Martin Luther, he did it in Anno 1450. by bloody Crosses, Nayles, Spunges and Speares; which appeared in the garments of men and women, yea in their rocks as they were a spinning. First I answer with one of our writers: If the Lord would in those times use the Cross for an outward sign, what is that to defend any present abuse of it? Did not God work a great miracle by the brazen serpent, which must be broken for all that when it is abused? Secondly, It was not for the Crosses sake that God ever used it (as if it were any sign of his sons) but per accidens, for that occasion which then it afforded, as Paul once used the Altar of Athens for his turn, a thing much esteemed of amongst the Idolaters. And the Christians the T. of Sirapis, much accounted of among his Priests, as signifying in their theology vitam venturam? What then? to retain a cross for an ordinary sign, because God or man have sometimes made use extraordinary of it, is as if we should still set up Altars because of that extraordinary use which Paul had once of an Altar at Athens. & retain holy water & holy bread for the sakes of those miracles which are storried of them, or finally the Oil and Imposition of hands, for the diseases which they cured, & the gifts of the holy Ghost which were miraculously bestowed by thē. Thirdly, These miracles were done to grace the faith which the cross then commonly signified, & the prayer which the cross gestured wrought all in all, it was not to grace the Cross itself, neither was it the cross itself that did effect these things. The Image which Julian broke was revenged miraculously. What? to grace Images? No, but to punish Julian, who in the Image dishonored Christ. A baptizing garment by Constantius the Emperor is given to Macarius of Jerusalem. this garment is sold to a stageplayer, who falleth down dead whiles he had it on his back. what to grace holy vestures, as the papists will have it? No say we, but to revēge the despite, contempt, & profaneness of the player. Leo the 4. Emperor of Constantinople taketh the Crown that was full of precious stones out of the treasury of Sophia▪ a while after he had set is on his head, he falleth into a fever and dieth. what to grace sumptuous adorning of Churches? No, but to punish sacrilege. Fourthly, seeing the papist adoreth the Cross with the greater honor, the greater miracles that he hath wrought, a badd office do we perform who use the Cross the more honorably for his Miracles sake. It was ill done of the Jews to make Elias his Altar upon Mount Carmell, an high place to serve God in for the miracles sake which God shown in it. How (then) can it be well done of us to bring the Cross into God's service for the miracles which God hath wrought by him against all Protestant writers, who not only refute papists error for their superstitious and unlawful worship to the Cross, but also for this their unsound reasoning for the same. Fifthly, our common objection against the Papists is, that their Saints, Images and Crosses had store of miracles when they had no need, and when there was none, that did impugn them but want miracles now a days at, greatest need, when so many rise up against them. Against this there arise in the midst of us, who set a broach even moderne miracles for the Cross. As a Father (saith one) wishing his child had been cross in the seat of natures impurity, had a next child borne without vent there. First let the time be considered when this miracle is ronge, which was grateful to the papists of those partes, to back a former miracle of theirs about the Crucifix. Iustus Lypsius Deifieth the Lady of Halles, because her image remaineth untouched when fire confirmeth round about her: even so the Papists of those partes, were in a cry, Great is the Crucifix, because in fresh memory, a Crucifix of Dunneid remaineth without hurt, when round about it, the Church and windows were thorn with thunder, that which divers went forth to see. Secondly, let the person of the Father be considered, upon whom it is fathered. For how could the proclaymer hereof either better revenge himself, then to set him upon the stage, who stopped at home his popish leavene, & detected abroad many of his bad proceedings; or gratify better his frindes of the other side, then to make him a spectacle of God's Judgment in the Crosses revenge, who had before made himself odious to them, all by service effectually performed in the apprehension of diverse of them? At one time being unable to enter a certain popish house he beateth down a Cross in ieste, that standeth over the door. A great matter is made hereof, as if there were renewed the miracle of the Cross, which hindered Homar in his attempt, until it was taken away. Thirdly, let the subject of this miracle be considered, how homely it is, and howe much savoring of that spirit, which coined a miracle of our home Kentismen, borne with tales, because they hanged tales upon Augustine the Monk, and of the wife of Gingolphus, letting scape with her tail as oft as she spake, because deriding her husbands miracles she had said before, that her tail made music, as much as he made miracles. Fourtly, let the malice be considered of this miracle: For suppose the child was so borne, are there not instances of children so borne, even in the same country, whose parents never offended the Cross? Is it not folly in Julius Firmicus (a favorer of fate) to impute all the plagues of Plotinus his death, to fates revenge, because he had written against it? If Zwickius have his nose cut of with a shot, must it needs be the Lady of Hales that hath done it, to revenge her self upon him? or if Risselman, loose his chin, in like manner, must this needs befall him for his contempt of that Idol. Fifthly, consider the falsehood of this miracle. If he could have reported of this child, that he was borne solid and flat posteriore natura parte, (as once one at Rome) their had the birth been (indeed) prodigious. But this child was not so borne, only he had a stoppage within. Which being removed by the Physicians advise, he died afterward of a scouring. He reporteth (also) that the Father had wished before, the Minister had Crossed his brother there howbeit being wary, he putteth in [I hear say] this hearsaye since, upon inquiry, is found a liar. By reason hereof the Father slandered, may well take up the words of Jerome, Ne probare cogatur audisse se dicit. O si & mihi liberet dicere quae multi clamitant & aliorum maledictis acquiescerem. iam & nos intelligeret scire quae omnes sciunt & me quoque audire quae nullus ignorat. 〈…〉 conclude, which is the worst miracle of all? that which doeth not only indu • er • ad falsa, but is also falsum, even such a one is this.

#Sect. 43. The refuge which the Opposites seek to have by the Fathers, removed, both because they passed measure herein, as also, that the case and time is now far changed.

THE last refuge of our Opposites is the hold which they have by the Fathers, who generally term and call the Cross Signum fidei, Trophaum fidei, Signum Dei, Signum Christi, Signum Dominicum, with the like. First the custom of the Fathers herein, none ever yet was able to justify. as who are known to crown the Cross with this honorable name more often then the water it self of Baptism. Quid est (saith Augustine ) quod omnes noverunt esse signum Christi, nisi Crucem Christi? speaking as if all men had forgotten that it is the water in Baptism that is Christ's sign. Nay, the Cross not only jetteth in the name of Christ's sign whereof it hath robbed the water in Baptism, but also throughout the Fathers writings bestoweth this name away from the water on whom please him, even on as many of his attendants as he thinketh good. The Fathers call the Creed Signaculum cordis nostri. Wherefore? For the Crosses sake it seemeth that did go with it, as these words show: Quando voluerit adversarius insidiari noverit redemptus cum symboli Sacramento & Crucis vexillo debere occurrere. So is the imposition of hands called, a Consignation for the Crosses sake wherewith it was administered. On the Oil many are the tyties which he bestoweth in the writings of the Fathers. who call it for the Crosses sake, Signaculum dominicum. signaculum spiritual. signaculum Dei & Spiritus sancti: yea 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also, that is sigillum. Seeing the Fathers overlashe thus far, we need not be moved much with their authority brought against us, who are not the first that hold this sign was grown superstitious, even in their chiefest age; yea long before the time of Augustine. Is it not a maxim in the Canon Law, prava consaetudo non ligat? Hath not a Council determined, prava consaetudo non minus extir panda est quam perniciosa corruptela? Secondly, what though the custom of the Fathers who used the Cross for a sign of Christ, were on all sides good, the times do differ. They lived in an age when it was despised: we in a time when it is adored. They in a time when it professed the faith: we in a time when it countenaunceth heresy. They in a time when it was proper to Christians: we in a time when it is commō to Papists. They in a time when it was used over all the Church for the sign of Christianity: we in an age, when out of our own Church it is nowhere used but for a sign of Antichristianitie. In regard, whereof we may well appeal to the old Canons, Regula Patrum traditae sunt (saith Gregory ) provt res postulare videbatur, temporis, loci, personarum, rei{que} ipsius habita ration. And Leo, Sicut quaedam sunt quae nulla possunt ration convelli, ita multa sunt quae pro necessitate temporum at consideratione aetatum oporteat temperari. And thus far of the Crosses sin against this second commandment.

#Sect. 2. That the using of the Cross is but an idle apishe roye, and lighter then the Surplice, which is also too light.

SEcondly, There is a vanity of lightness in it which maketh it worthy to be cut of (as Balthasar was) when in the balance he was found to light. For every idle ceremony must away from the service of God ( say some) even omnis ritus leuis & infundabilis ex scriptura. and every ceremony which hath either otiosum spectaculum, or ludum otiosum. And the sign of the Cross is an idle ceremony (say others) which all reason will make plain. Doth any know a reason weightier to balance the Cross then that which a Papist bringeth, who proveth out of Caelius Rodigin lib. 10. cap. 8. that the Cross is a sacred sign, grave and religious, even by the law of Nature, because the Heathens in their adorations, moving their right hand to their mouths, did kiss their thumb laid a twart over their forefinger in the manner of a cross? If he do, let him speak. For, as for this reason it weigheth nothing with me, since every Italian fashioneth such a cross as this, as often as he gestureth Eccola fico. Howbeit, what ask I? When the friends of the cross them selves acknowledge it to be a toye. and our writers chalk it up amongst other toys popish whereof I am sorry. For how can we keep our mouths open against papists for using toys in the service of God while we our selves use these ceremonies which in common estimation are but tryfles? The Surplice hath more gravity in it then hath the gesture of the cross. For the wear of white was of old time honorable, and now it is pleaded with some color, it serveth to set forth the Ministers dignity. and yet we see how our Fathers have hissed at it. One terming it. player-like apparel, and a vain vizard. another a pretty toy another an Apish toye. another histrionical, scenicall, & hic scorner like. It is lighter then the Surplice which yet is esteemed too light, and is it weightier then the ceremonies which are singled out of God's service because they are minutiae. because Nugatoriae; because they yield nothing praeter inane oblectamentum. because they seem decorae only sensui Carnis, & mundi iudicio, & non constant mortificatione, sanctitate, modestia? M ^r Buter misliketh the stay of the child at the Church-door, and the white garment that is done on him in the church, because the former is actio scenica, and in so holy a mystery as this we may not do anything magis leuiter. the latter a sign that serveth for little, save only ad augendum ludum, cuius etiam occasio omnis, est amputanda. and he concludeth at the last, even of the words of the Cross it self, as they stood in King Edw. communion book, Nihil tale decet scriptura, & ludicra omnia debent ab his mysterijs longe abesse. It is no sin with Peter Viret to term the crosses in the Lord's supper, juggling feats, and an Egyptians fast and loose. And as for the Priest that stretcheth his arms to express a Cross to the people, he laugheth at him, and saith, he is too merry a Christ. Is not a Cross in a childes forehead, as very a play-game as a white Chrisom upon his face? or a Cross in baptism a fast and loose gesture as well as it is in the Lord's supper? And what difference to express a Cross with arms, and to make a cross with the finger? Alas this finger cross is but leuis agitatio manus (as Auselme telleth us in sober sadness) elegit crucem, quae leui motu manus exprimitur; qua & contra inimici versutias, armamur. Therefore is it too merry a gesture to represent the sorrowful torments of the Lord Christ Jesus, especially those unspeakable torments which in his soul he suffered. Can the bloody sweat of his whole body, be represented to us by the wagging of a finger? the groans, the tears, and strong schritches wherewith he filled the whole firmament of heaven, be well resembled by a little breaking of the air? Can the hell of his heaviness, be proportioned with a playful gesture of ease, or can any gesture though never so uneasy (unless God's ordinance vnderproppe it) bear up with gravity, the fearful mystery of this Sacrament? which to reverence as we ought, we stand rather in need of a cloak to cover our faces then of a cross to write on the face, after the manner that Christ with his finger wrote on the ground, when he would show the matter was trifling which was in hand. Nay, our Forefathers devised a far more reverent sign (as some conceive) to express the dying of the Christ to come. not in God's service which was unlawful, but in the firmament of the heaven. When amongst their Astronomical figures they proportioned a man dolefully praying on his knees termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the first and no more, though aftertimes have named him Hercules. and in his praying stretching his arms in form of a cross, and composing the rest of his body as if he were hanging (for so Aratus doth describe him) and treading with his right foot upon the serpents head. This was a sign of some sablenes, of some saddnes. as for the crossing of the finger, what fether more light? sure not the feathers of the fan of which Jerome, in that they drive away the flies they have an eligant signification debere luxuriam cito restinguere quia muscae moriturae oleum suauitatis exterminant. No nor the feathers of the Mass-flapp neither. For when he driveth away the flies from the cup of the Lord Supper, he serveth for better use and purpose then the sign of the Cross hath any, and when he signifieth the driving away of evil thoughts ventilabro fidei after Abraham's example, who drave away the fowls with a staff that came to hinder his sacrifice he keepeth the decorum a great deal better, then the sign of the Cross, which our brethren use to call flabellum muscarum for the vanity of lightness in it; and as a vain and empty ceremony do much detest.

#Sect. 3. That the Cross is unprofitable, fleshly, smelling of Idolatry, and of too light a color.

THe Crosses 3. vanity is of unprofitableness for the which he must be banished by this commandment; For what? The unsavory salt cast forth, because good for nothing? The frutlesse Vine thrown into the fire, because good for no use▪ The old ceremonies of the Jews forbidden because they did not profit them that were exercised in them: do all declare how ill God is pleased with that which is vain, through inanitie of commodity and of profit which ought to be in it. Doth not this suffice to cashier a thing: It is not profitable, it edifieth not, even as Aquinas himself observeth? Nay, doth not our own Law condemn the ceremonies quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And what though they have been profitable here to fore, must they be kept for their old service? No, omnes ritus remouendi sunt qui ad adificationem vtiles esse desinunt. and again Ceremonia vbi nullus est amplius earum vsus abs{que} omni dubitatione tollenda. The light hereof hath forced our adversaries to make this their issue we doubt not but great good will be done by the ceremonies controuersed, what great good of a tryfle? for so you judge yourself of the Cross. Then behold ether a great miracle (to wit) a thistle bringing forth, not only a fig, but also a pomgranate; or else a great Monster (to wit) a fountain sending forth both sower water and sweet. And what means in the Cross by which these proffites may arise. First, be the reverend antiquity of it, which giveth contentment to the people, with whom experience it self showeth how much through custom a ceremony worketh. This reason when time was would have served Pilate well. [ When to content the people of Jewry ] crying for their old custom, he let Barabbas loose amongst them, not much worse then the Cross, unless we count soul-murder nothing, and the stirring of sedition in our Church. And it would have well serveth Symmacus also, backing his paganism with the custom of former times, whom when one answereth he replieth for us in the cause of the Cross.

And the abuse of this sign considered, the more ancient the worse, & the more contentment it giveth the more superstition it breedeth. there having place, hear what one said of the Surplice once: St singulis parochijs idonei mittantur doctores, pijs hominibus grata erit, ista vestium sublatio, impiorum vero gratia si Christi serui esse volumus, nulla modo captanda est benevolentia, multo minus eorum vlla ration sustentanda est superstitio. The seconde way whereby the Cross is supposed able to bring in profit, is, that complement that is in it ad ornatum. O say the Procters of it, The Cross must not be pulled of. Will ye so strip this Sacrament from the attire with which the wisdom of man hath clothed it? The wisdom of man had devised chariottes in Christ's time. But what he? Even when he was to show forth his greatest pomp, recalled he not the ancient simplicity of the Judges in Israel, who rode upon Asses? Wherevpon one against the Adiaphoristes: Christus non opus habet isla externa sapientia in suis Sacramentis. Venit pauper sedens in Asina ad filiam Zion, in quo aduentu noluit aliquam exornationem, ergo non vult quoque illam in suis Sacramentis. Shall we think the Baptism of the primitive Church was not as richlie attyred as ours, for want of the Cross? or that the Baptism of the moderne Churches now, is more beggerlie clothed then ours, because they do not use this sign? Think not to say: we clothe Baptism with the Cross, not as with an ornament of necessity, but of decency only. Bellarmine him self will plead so much for the whole wayne-load of popish ceremonies. Do but think the robe of man's wisdom to be necessary for a decency, and run into Montanisme. which pleadeth in like manner: The rawnes of the first times must be perfected with an ampliation of Ceremonies, such as may be vestimentum quodammodo fidei quae retro erat nuda. and into papisme, which reasoneth in like sort: Religio sine debito ceremoniarum ornatu inculta est informis & omni pulchretudine vacua. And last of all into Lutheranism and Adiaphorism, which contend for images, and all [ad ornatum]: in like fashion out of Rupertus, fides Apostolorum rudis fuit: A posterioribus vero adhibitis ceremonijs exornata. But if there were needful some robes of man's wisdom, he is a bad tailor that hath chosen the cross, wh ^ch indeed dishiteth baptism more ways then one. First, because it is to gaye in the eyes of the people, like the brave attire of a servant that turneth away the people's eyes frō his Master to himself; or like the painting of a woman's face which disfigureth the natural beauty of this sacrament, and maketh men think that plastica Dei and the ordinance of the water is not beautiful enough, reprehendunt • n. qui emendant. As it is an injury (saith Augustine ) to a painter when another cometh to add ornament to his picture: so is it an injury to God when men will presume to add beauty to his creature, and so by consequent to his ordinance. Cyprian speaking against those who added beauty to their faces by painting, opus Dei est (saith he) omne quod nascitur, diaboli quodcunque mutatur. So likewise here: All that is instituted is God's. all that is added against the word of God by man (indeed) is the Devils. Secondly, The robe of the Cross is too fleshly for baptism. Knowe we not the Queens garment (saith Augustine ) which is woven of ceremonies, must be suitable to hir inward beauty, and so be spiritual? especially in this time of the gospel? Thirdly, the robe of the Cross smelleth too much of the stews. whereas the Churches simplicity in outward ceremonies maketh hir like unto a woman that doeth modestly put in hir hair within hir kercher, and doth not frouze it like the wanton. Cloth hir now with the Cross & Surplice, and the habit of the harlot is upon hir. against which the Fathers cry out so much, Si in Idoleio vesci vetitū sit, Quid in Idoli habitu videri? Again, Nullus habitus licitus est apud nos illicito actui ascriptus. habet. n. ab idolo profanationis suae maculam And last or all. Tunicam si induas inquinatam poterit forsitan illa inquinari perte, sed tu per illam mundus esse non poteris. Is not the Surplice the Idols habit? the sign of the cross the Idol him self? Fourthly, The robe of the Cross is of too light a culler. For it is vain (as hath been shown). and even a Bellarmine him self will banish all things used ad ornatum, if they be [ vana or inepta ]. We have freed Baptism (you will say) from all Romish immodestie, in that we have packed all other of hir gaudes away. But what said one once, receive the Passover of the Jews, and receive all the rest of their Ceremonies also: So receive the Cross and Surplice (which are their chiefest badges) and then give countenance to all the rest of their ceremonies [ad ornatum]. which (me thinks) we should the less do, because the Jesuits blaspheme for them, as if God delighted in them: which is to make him flesh not spirit; yea took such a delight in them, as to take charge bestowed upon them in better sort, then if it were bestowed in mercy on the poor.

#Sect. 4. The profits alleged to accompany the cross, for commendation thereof, as to keep from sin, confusion, cause zeal, and to help in the instant of temptation, are refuted.

THE third way whereby it is thought the Cross is profitable, is that sensible efficacy of it whereby it worketh on the mind, after the manner thus described: The forehead is the closet of fancy: upon fancy our mind beateth day and night, as upon an anvil: the Cross (then) set in the forehead, awaketh the fancy, and stirreth up tht imagination, and becometh a powerful worker on the mind, especially to make it ashamed of sin, and to stay it in the instant of the temptation. Now well fare a wet finger, (say I). For will ye know? The Chrism of confirmation layeth claim to this Panegyric, and pleadeth it is stolen from hir. who must be in the forehead, even for the same cause, to wit, propter propinquitatem imaginationis, the nearenes of the imagination. But view we the several pagentes of this Architecture. The first commendation is drawn from the place, to wit, the forehead. Which the Fathers never knew from whom (we say) we receive our light. It appeareth they did not cross according to this project, because they signed them selves in those partes which dwell far from this cell of our fancy. It was the mouth and the stomach of Paula hir mother that Eustochium croste, when she lay upon dying. and Paula her self morti vicina crucis signum pingebat in labijs. and the counsel given by Jerome is this: Claudas cubiculum pectoris, as well as this, & signo Crucis munias frontem. The counsel given by Prudentius is, fac cum vocante somno castum petis cubile frontem locum{que} cordis crucis figura signet. Ephracem is old, though counterfeit. Now he thus: Pingamus in ianuis atque in frontibus nostris & in ore & in pectore & in membris omnibus vivificum signum. Chrysostom willeth us on our hearts to imprint the sign of the Cross, ad cohibendos & continendos turbatos animi motus, & effrenatos concupiscentiae impetus. Luther followed this counsel it seemeth. For he also crossed in pectore. And when the Fathers crossed in the forehead, it was because the forehead was the openest place for profession, and the best member in the body. Non sine causa signum suum (saith Augustine ) Christus in frontibus figi voluit tanquam in seed pudoris, ne Christi opprobrio Christianus erubescat. Crucis signo in front hodie tanquam in post signandus es. Subinde omnes cruce se signant inscribendo in nobilissimum membrum nostrum: in front enim nostra tanquam in Columna quotidie figuratur. The seconde commendation that here is given to make the Cross profitable, is drawn from the manner of his proceeding, in awaking the fancy by stirringe up the imagination, and thereby working on the mind.

But this, is it not the right Image working of popery? where the painting of Christ's death moveth the eye: the eye advertiseth the common sense; the common sense informeth the fancy: out of our fancy reason draweth a consideration, &c. and wherein? there is an abstraction from the matter of the image to the form so abstracted, and from the form that is abstracted to the apprehension of Christ him self, for that our fancy doth consider it to be his Image. I for my parte can see no difference between this cross and image-working, therefore let it receive the same answer. These abstractions (saith D. Fulke) are Metaphisicall and too hard lessons for the people to learn: & whē they have learned them, they are nothing worth. And as for conjoying the outward sign which Christ signified by means of our fancy, it is a toy to mock an Ape. Last of all. A Christian is taught by hearing and not by seeing. Blessed are they (saith Christ) which believe and have not seen: and he hath learned that an Image is profitable for nothing, that he is a teacher of lies; and that he is cursed that saith an Image shall teach him. It will be objected that this abstraction and progression, and moving of the fancy is found in the Sacrament. which, what is it to the purpose? For where as in the working of outward signs, it is the passage of the mind from the sign to the thing signified that doth enkindle it after the manner that a firebrand taketh flame by being wagged & shaken, there is in a Sacrament a fire of the spirit to enkindle this passage, which hath thoughts & imaginations that are grounded on the word: whereas in the Cross it is a strange fire that doth enkindle with fancies sensual & imaginations fantastical against his rule, who writeth thus against cross-worship: Ne sit religio nostra in phantasmatibus nastris. The 3. commendation which is here given to the Cross, is drawn from the effect. which is a restraint from sin, through shame conceived and that in the very instant of the temptation. Concerning this, who will not commend the cleanly conveyance of this Author, who will have the cross a weapon against the Devil still. howbeit, not so gross a one as the papists or as the Fathers themselves do make it. These hold that the sight of the cross driveth the tempter away even ex opere operato, through God's ordinance, and because it is a Trophe of Christ, & putteth the Devil in remembrance of the foil which he received by Ch. death. The Fathers some excuse as if they held that the sign of the cross driveth the tempter away ex opere operantis only, as it is a sign of faith & gesture of prayer. Who, whether they be right or no, I will not here determine: only I will uncover the fountain from whence M ^r Hookers doctrine floweth unto the papists, and from them with some cleansing and refining unto himself. Crucis signum infractum signum quia cuflodia munitissima Crux. Hic est lapis quo David frontem Goliae percussit. quo signo nos & tuti semper sumus & vivimus. Immortale lauacrum portemus in frontibus nostris cum viderint demones contremiscunt, qui aurata capitolia non timent crucem riment. Signo crucis teipsum muni, validissima. n. armatura est. sieve dormias, five iter agas sieve evigiles sieve operi insistas sieve manduces sieve bibas sieve maria naviges sieve flumina trāsmittas, hac te lorica circumtege membra{que} tua omnia, salutari signo exorna, at{que} circūsepi, & non accedent ad te mala hoc. n. signo circūspecto adversariae potestates conterritatrementes{que} recedent. Signate front vt daemones signum regis videntes, trementes procul fugiant. Crux signum fidelium & timor daemonum. Gregory Nazianz. speaking of Julian crossing himself whē the Devil affrighted him, Valuit (saith he) cedunt daemones, pellūtur timores. Theodoret speaking of the same, Daemones trophei dominici figuram respiciētes & sua recordati devictionis repent disparuerunt. Muniar crucis tua signo quod videntes potestates adversae fagiant confusae & discedant àme. Gregory tells us that a Jew in a Christian church saved himself from a Senate of Divills by signing his forehead with the sign of the cross. An Angel chideth one Ketellus for not crossing himself, giving him warning, ne in posterum insidiātes hosts inermē eum invenirent. Pervse this fountain from whence this profit of the Cross floweth against temptation. Consider with what puddle the papists, infect it when they use it as weapon against the tempter, being thereunto confirmed by these authorities, and then resolve whether they do not better service, who reject the cross quite in the combat of temptation, because it is none of the Christian weapons, but is omitted by Paul where he rehearseth the whole armor of God: and esteem all use of the Cross against the devil, to be superstitious, and the Cross it self no better then a straw to run at tilt withal; or they who dubb it with this honor, that it is a forcible mean to keep from sin: a mean to save from confusion: it causeth zeal and shame of sin, and helpeth at the instant against the temptation of the devil? It fell out once by the great mercy of the Lord upon the Protestants of Beziers in France, that a drunken Drummer saveth the whole Town by waking of it, at the very instant that their walls were surprizing, by ringing of their Town-bell, as he was going home at midnight from his drink. If the sign of the Cross save at the instant of the temptation by awaking the fancy, he saveth like this Drummer. And as the Senate of Beziers would not suffer drunken men to ring the Larum bell of the Town, whensoever their drink should move them; notwithstanding this strange deliverance: so though some drunken (but not with wine) shall think themselves awaked by the Cross at the pushe of their temptation, yet will not the Senate of Divines permit to bless our selves with it, or to use it in common use. So (then) neither by the contentment of it, nor by the complement of it, nor by the efficacy of it, doth the cross any good, but the promise of much good by it, proveth like the promise which papists make of much good to be done by Images, both which are the promise of the apple: promising much good, but paying much evil. If any reply, this cometh of the abuse, the answer is ready: every ceremony must be removeth, that doeth degenerate into abuse when it is found to be incorrigible, as the Cross hath proved it self for more then these forty years. And so far of the Crosses sin, against the letter of this Law.

#Sect. 5. That the Cross is now not only unprofitable, but also very hurtful.

WHen we come to examine it according to the sense and meaning, we find it hurtful, not unprofitable only, as one of our writers saith: verily in the house of God, that thing is hurtful that doth no good. All the ceremonies of the church ought to be clear and lively and able to edify. This speak he of dividing the bread of the Sacrament into; partes, of which Harding demanded of him, what many now demand of us concerning the Cross: [what hurt is there in it]? Too much hurt, and more then we would more (also) then Master Jewel could find in the breaking of the host: we need not reply as he of that. The Cross doth hurt in that he doth no good: for behold many hurtes which he doth by hindering good, & furthering harm. The first is seen in the bearing of God's name before the papists who are his enemies, where it stayeth profession, & stayneth or hindereth it, or maketh it halt. This we see in our Magistrates, who have ceased to execut law against the Crosses of Church-windows for the Crosses sake in Baptism. This we see in our writers; who when they write against the Cross, are calm (if not cold) where foreners are servant, and are fain to come in with [though] and [if] and the like provisoes as if they were put to the same exigent for the excusing of our Church in the use of the Cross, as Cy • ill was once (by our own confession.) When Julian the Apostate took advantage from the reverence which the Christians then gave unto it. This we see in our Preachers whose lips in a manner are sowed up from speaking against the very abuse and superstition of the Cross, least they should seem to speak against the Cross in Baptism, and to break the Law and that per contemptum. This we see in our people, who be at a stand in their zealous pursuit of popery, because they stand as men discouradged, yea amazed to see the falls of their Asahelles and of their Amasaes, I mean their spiritual captains whom the sign of the Cross hath wracked. And as the Cross stayeth profession against the papists, so doth he stain it with that conformity with him, which hath ever been esteemed a flaw, yea a bracke in Christian zeal. For what they who retain the old ceremonies of the Jews, who are not so bad as popish rites dum volunt & Iudei esse & Christiani, nec Iudei sunt nec Christiani. Augustine speaking of womē wearing man's attire Nescio (saith he) vtrum falsas mulieres an falsos viros melius vocem: veros tamen histriones veros{que} infames sine dubitatione possumus vocare. The communion of rites confoundeth sects, more then the communion of attire confounded sexes: who then would judge us to be good protestants, who communicate with popish rites, besides our selves? Thus one of our writers, bominum traditions &c. The traditions of men defile the confession of faith, whereupon the scripture reprehendeth those who in the reforming of the Church, left the high places, because these retained in face the footsteps of former fornication. And in like manner now a days they have not takē their fornications from their face, who retain still in their Churches popish Images and Chalices, and playerlike vestures with the like, who all of them do (as if an adulteress after she is reconciled to hir husband) should bring the gifts and love tokens of hir former adultery impudently into his sight, and go about to procure his goodwil by them. What Protestant hitherto ever renounced the common tenent, we must have nihil commune with papists in their ceremonies and their rites? The first excuse here allegeth there is such an utter difference made between the popish crosses and ours, as that there is no scar or blemish to our confession by the same. First, suppose there were some dissimilitude (which yet in sight and show is none) what say we of the Samaritans, were they not foolish when they thought they made a goodly separation from the Jews by keeping their Passover at a diverse season? And what judge we of the Tartars? Do we not hold them absurd when they think they differ sufficiently from the Jews, because their circumzion is at the. • . or. 3. year of their age, as their Pope shall think fit? Last of all, what think we of the men of Russia? Do we not imagine them fond whē they think they spite Rome with a marvelous difference of their Images, for that they are not of the same fashion, but according to their own country making? Secondly, God forbiddeth all likeness of ceremonies with Idolaters: I say all [likeness] that cometh near the rites of the aliens, as a like cutting and marking of the flesh. A like grove to that of Idolaters. A plant taken out of Samaria, which is like hers. A Priest like unto the Priests of other Countries. Qua authoritate, &c. With what authority and profit we may take example of administering Sacraments from Ethnics, that speech of Moses testifieth: Take heed thou imitate not the Heathen, nor ask after their Ceremonies▪ saying: As those Nations worship these gods, so will I worship. Non facietis similiter Domino Deo vestro. ye shall not do the same unto your God as they do to theirs. Thirdly, the practice of the Church hath ever shunned all similitude with exterior rites, the better to bear up the profession of the Gospel. The Council of Nice chose a diverse Easter-day frō the Passover of the Jews, vt ecclesia cum Iudeis nibil co • sor •• babere videatur, which was according to the scripture, as one of our writers Qu •• t • deciman • fuerunt ex scripuris expugnati, quia sci diver sum esse debebat Chisti ••• rum & I • d •• um Pascha,

To make the Cross him self his own judge. Was there any other cause that chose him at first, but that the Gentiles hating him most, he served best to make separation from them▪ Neither is he well used at this day unless it be in the East Indies; where the Christians are said to have a cross in their church, & nothing else to distinguish them selves from Pagans: and at Constantinople where the Patriarch payeth a great tribut to have a golden Cross stand on the pinnacle of his patriarchall Palace, to distinguish from the Turks. Chrysostom holdeth it better to be drunk then to fast the Jewish fast: he meaneth a fast upon the same day with theirs. And Augustine condemneth all likeness of fasting with the Manichees, Die Dominico iciunare scandalum est magnum, maxim post quam innotuit haeresis Manichaorum qui suis anditoribus ipsum constituerunt ad iciunandum tanquam legitimum diem. Per quod factum est vt ieiunium die Dominico horribilius haberetur. Leo will not have incurvation towards the East like to that which Heathen use, upon this reason, ^u abstinendum est ab ipsa huiu smodi specie officij, quam cum in nostris invenit qui deorum cultum reliquit, nonne hanc secum partem opinionis vetustae, tanquam probabilem retentabit quā Christianis & impijs viderit esse communem? Gregory the great abolished an auncienter cermonie then the Cross, to avoid communion with the Arians quia hucvs{que} ab haereticis infans tertio mergebatur, a pub nos fiendum esse non censeo. Bernard will not have anything in the Church (the pompous adorning there of by name) that may quodammodo representare antiquum Iudeorum ritum. Come we down to moderne times. The Greek Church objected to the Roman that it Iudaizeth: because it useth unleavened bread like to the Jews. The Roman objected to the Greek that they Judaize because they use abstinence from blood and strangled like them. The Churches of France, Heluetia, Germany have a form of prayer changed of purpose to be unlike the Mass-book, & these Churches as they have abolished the whole dross of popish doctrine, so they retain not so much as any one dram of their ceremonies. What our own Church at home (though at the first it tolerated the Cross) whereas the papists pray towards the Easte, our Church bids the Ministers to stand at the North side of the communion table: the reason whereof is this: as the Primatiue Church (saith Doctor Fulke) did choose to pray towards the East, to avoid the superstition of the Jews, that prayed towards the West: so we do now pray towards the South to avoid the superstition of the Papists: who use to pray towards the Easte. Nay our very adversaries themselves will yield to us herein: A Lutheran affirming the veil is how unfit in marriage which was used in Ambrose time, because it is a rite of the Jews, and Bellarmine himself condemning them who have more care to adorn Churches then to fill them with Preachers, because howsoever their meaning be diverse, yet videntur factis aliquo modo affines esse superstitioni Iudeorum. So is the nakedness of this first excuse detected, which denieth a communion with papists, because the Cross is not used with us, as it is with them, for as much as we see that not only the same use but the same rites themselves are unlawful, yea all likeness, all nearnes, all imitation, all show, all representation, and as Bellarmine himself speaketh, all affinity in fact with them.

#Sect. 6. The second excuse, that the cross is imposed by Christian Magistrates, is taken away, in diverse respects, especially because it is taken as a consenting in a part to the ceremonies of the Church of Rome.

THe second excuse fumbleth thus. If the Cross were imposed by papists, for a mark of their profession it were somewhat: but being imposed by Christian governors to another ende, now the use of him no way crazeth our confession against them. First, the papist drawed the very command of the Magistrate itself to a certain kind of confession and approbation of his rites, and in them of his Religion which maketh his rites unlawful. This is that which a whole Church saith, Cum Adi • phora rapiuntur (mark rapiuntur ) ad confessionem libera esse de sinunt sicuti Paulus ostendit: licitum esse vesci carnibus si quis non submon • as Idolis esse litatas, alioquin fore illicitas; quod qui his vescituriam vescendo Idololatriam approbare videatur. Now it is easy to show the papists do draw the ceremonies controversed to an approbation and confession of their religion. Martial justifieth the popish cross by the cross which standeth in the Queens Chapel. Saunders justifieth popish images by the crosses which we use. Harding justifieth his church service by our Cross and Surplice and other rites which we retain from them. No little advantage do they suck out of our communion book, which they term an English translation out of the Mass-book, and out of the difficulty whereby it came in, many Protestants them selves adiudging that the stable of popish superstition was not thoroughly purged out of it. Doeth no Bristow draw the likeness of our service book to a countenancing of their Mass-book? Raynoldes draw our private Baptism to a proof of that necessity that they put in the Sacrament? The Rhemistes draw the absolution of the sick prescribed in the communion book, to an approbation of their absolution, auricular confession, and Sacrament of penance? Our home Pseudo-catholiques, draw they not the sign of the Cross to a motive for their religion as which they hold a special cognizance of their faith? Seeing these things be thus drawn to confession, it skilleth not whether we intend to confess their faith or no. Secondly, our governors profess an intent to give contentment to the papists by the retention of the Cross and Surplice which the zeal of English Preachers if they cannot endure, it is to be pardoned, as having the Divines of Germany before them, who stood out with a greater edge against the ceremonies enforced vpō them in the days of Charles the fifth, because they saw their Princes sought no other thing in them, but to please the popish faction. And until these ceremonies be abolished, they will be abused to the gracing of popery it self, to the disparagement of the Gospel, and to the gagging of the mouths of many a painful and profitable a Preacher. so that we are in Paul's case then refusing to circumcize when his liberty was spied into and spited at, & when the Gospel's disgrace was sought by his conformity. In this respect we are also often in the case of Julian's soldiers, then disclaiming all incense burning, when by the relation of their host they saw it was a decipula to grace Idolatry by a show of their conformity & approbation. The third excuse of the Cross now followeth, which inferreth that though lightness of ceremonies stain profession, and that then when they be drawn to countenance popery, yet that in the Cross there is no such hurt, it being a trifle and a thing of nothing, than which there is nothing that can be more rashly spoken. First, what though the ceremonies controversed were small and little, we are to follow that constant Marcus Arethusius, who when his adversaries were contented with anything from him so he would give somewhat towards the repairing of a paganish Temple which before he had pulled down, made this reply, Ne obulum quidem. Moses yielded not in an house. Daniel forbeareth not so much as the ceremony of opening his window towards Jerusalem. The name of Passion Sunday is less then the making of the Cross, and it was never so much abused, and yet on the other side putteth us in mind of the passion of Christ, as well as the sign of the cross doeth, yet Bishop Jewel refuseth to call it so, as unwilling to yield even so much to the fancies of the papists. The Surplice is a lesser matter then the Cross, yet Peter Martyr would never wear it, no though his Canons place in Ch. Church required it of him. The square cap is less then either yet Martin Bucer would never wear it. and being demanded a reason why, he said because his head was round. Secondly, since the time that the Cross saw the sun, he hath been as king in the midst of ceremonies: especially in the case of profession. Consider we it but as papists use in for an Image, even so serveth it for [ special confession ]. For hereby (say they) we especially testify against the novelties of the Lutherans and Calvinistes, whiles we religiously worship that, which they sacrilegiouslie do destroy. Consider we it, as they use it apart by itself. Here the Sacraments (say they) do not so well distinguish from heretics: where the ceremoninies (notwithstanding) make an excellent difference: as now a days the sign of the cross, is a notable sign (saith one) whereby to know a Catholic Howe can we hold up our foreheads for shame of the beasts mark, whiles our ears hear this? or with what forehead can we say the Cross is no great badge of popery, when the papists cal it the great Character of their glory. Hippolitus foreshowed, that as the Cross is Christ's sign, so Antichrists sign on the other side should be [non vti signo Crucis] sed illud potius execrari & abolere. As counterfeit as this Hippolitus is, yet Bellarmine with the rest of the papists accepteth his judgment, making the Cross to be the very sign of Christ and Christian Religion: and counting the Calvinistes the forerunners of Antichrist, because they do not use this sign. This saw our Fathers that saw our deliverance out of Egypt & were more sincere: They accounted in the matter of profession, that the Cross is as dangerous now as a false ensign is in war, which most deceiveth and breedeth most confusion. And this confusion bred by the Cross, is so much the more horrible, if it be true which some do teach, that the sign of the Cross is that special mark of the beast, and that Antichrists sign (by name) which the Apocal. doeth foreshewe. Amongst these one writeth thus: The superstitious marks of the Cross arise out of the beasts name, to wit, from the number of it, thus expressed in the Greek original Ξξ s for the letter Χ is a Saint Andrew's cross. the letter ξ is in latin X which is also a sliding cross. the last letter s containeth 〈◊〉 and r, the latter whereof is an headless cross: & thus it appeareth that the marks whereby they say they honor Christ, are a dishonor to him, and the [cognizance] of Antichrist. But if the Cross be not in special sort the beasts mark, whether made simply as these conjecture, or with oil which others judge, yet all our writers do consent that the ceremonies of the Roman church are a parte of this mark, amongst which the cross is chief. Sin they not grievously who with certain instruments gathered their vncircumcizion again, to be like to the Gentills? Alas then, what is our sin, who not only receive the cross our selves (one of Antichrists marks) but also with it as it were spatisteri quadam, and as it were with a pair of pinsers do draw on others the vncircumcizion popish, or at the least a likeness with the papist? Let it be considered with what probability the Divines of Germany held that the Adiaphorism of rites popish retained, is the very Image of the beast, Cuius notae & characteres, & nomen sunt haec ipsa adiaphora: and that the third Angel who preacheth against the Image of the beast and the receiving of his mark, representeth the Preachers that withstand the tail of Antichrist, left behind in the Church of God. But whether this be so or no, there is some certainty in this that followeth, which is that the retention of popish ceremonies under pretence they be Adiaphora, is a countermaund to that precept exite ab ea populus meus, seeing hereby men do even redire, yea introire ad Antichristum, not only not [exire] from him.

#Sect. 7. That the Cross fostereth hypocrisy in the middes of our Church, and hindereth spiritual worship.

FRom the hypocrisy of the Cross in bearing God's name before the Papists, come we to the hypocrisy of it found in the bearing of God's name in the middes of our own church. Here our main foundation is, that this commaundment forbidding all occasions them selves as well as other commandments do, the sign of the Cross must pack away for that occasion of hypocrisy which is in it, even as one of our Writers: Well, seeing the Cross hath been a cause that the inward faith hath been neglected, nay if it be but an occasion hereof, that were sufficient to remove it. To remove the hypocrisy of the Jewish ceremonies, God removed the painted wall it self of the Jewish priesthood. so to remove the hypocrisy of these ceremonies controversed, the ceremonies them selves must be removed. The purity of the Gospel requireth of us to retain the verity of the Jewish azimes, but to lett the azimes them selves alone. So the purity of a Churches reformation requireth now to retain the verity of the popish Crosses (which is Christ crucified) but to lett their Crosses them selves alone. For know we not, they have defiled verity, fervency, singleness, all the three partes of that Vprightnes which this commandment doeth enjoin, with the leavin of all the three partes of contrary hypocrisy. preposterousnes, vacuity and pollution? An example of the first we have in the Crosses that certain women bare in their bosoms, for these are censured as tythers of Annis-seed and Commin, to the omission of a greater duty: which was to bear the power of the death of Christ in their hearts? Example of the second we have in that common and vulgar opinion which cometh from Gregory, to wit, that a Christian is safe enough from the Devil, though Vas vacuum, if he be but signatum with the Cross. Which, while the papists defend as good, and much people at home do practice, the pens of our Writers, are embittered against the Cross, as against an occasion of much empty hypocrisy: to make the spirit to reenter again, as Gregory more truly teacheth else-where. Corda fide vacua Diabolo sunt subdita. As for the third the word is plain, that the touching of Antichrists things, maketh unclean now in the soul, as the touching of meats unholy, defiled the body in Moses law, for a figure of this pollution. Now to particulars.

For the sanctifying of the sensible and reasonable soul, as they use to work, together all signs devised by man, must be displanted out of God's service, as occasions of sensual service: yea as enemies to the spiritual worship of God: after the example of God him self, who to be served in spirit and truth, removed the ceremonies of his own ordinance: not to make place for Image or Cross, or any other carnal rite ordained by man, but vt animas nostras avelleret ab hoc intuitu ad Contemplationem retum spit itualium, Cultum{que} suum à visibilibus ad invisibilia transferret. This doctrine we are to hold fast, against crosses, against Images, against all other carnal objectes in God's service, even as we have received it not only from the mouth of Christ, but from the writings of the Fathers likewise. For whereas Origen commendeth the Jews for banishing all Image-makers from amongst them upon this reason, Ne qua hiresset fabricandorum simulacrorum occasio quae ad contemplanda terrena animae oculos retorqueret. Whereas Lactantius condemneth all Images upon this reason: Galcanda terrestria vt caelestia consequamur, and willeth spiritually to look up to God. that so in domicilio pectoris eum statuamus. Whereas Epiphanius is cited, exhorting thus: Ne in Ecclesiam Imagines inferatis, sed perpetuo circumferte Deum in cordibus vestris. Non enim fas est Christianum per oculos suspensum teneri, sed per occupationem mentis. To which our writers use to add [we walk by faith and not by sight] [blessed are they that believe & see not]. Last of all, whereas the whole Argument of S ^t Bernard's Apology (even in Bellarmine's own confession) is this, That the Cluniacenses were carnal in that they used outward spectacles qui impediunt affectum, dum retorq • ent aspectum. The Cross being as much guilty of hindering spirituull worship, of retorting the sense to an earthly sight, of hurting of the hearts affection as any other carnal object formerly mentioned, he must be thrust out as well as they. From this preposterousnesse of the Cross setting the sense before the spirit, come we to his Vaaeuitie for his inward Devotion. which being the fat of every sacrifice, yea the marrowe of every service, how great is the sin of the Cross to cool it? how great also their oversight that putt such a cooler in trust to kindle it? First choose we a Cross to stir up reverence and devotion to the Sacrament, and leave we our selves without excuse for excluding the Oil, Salt▪ Spittell, and the like, because these are annexed to Baptism for like reverence and devotion towards it: and open we a window on the other side to other of their Jewish ceremonies as to their Incense, since it serveth only to admonish Con nostrum ignitum veluti thuribulum coram Deo odor atissimum facere. Secondly, our writers hold the Cross with other ceremonies of the Papists, beggarly ceremonies. Beggerly, that is wanting power to entic he with grace spiritual. And when Saunders objecteth, the Cross and Images breed devotion. The Devil they do (quoth D. Fulke. ) Censure him not. The scripture saith, the Cross is a Devil. the greatest effects of whose devotion, when they are registered are said to be these: The Image of the Crucifix found pictured in the heart of S ^• Clara, and the wounds of Christ imprinted in the body of Saint Francis. which pretty images of himself begotten by him, putteth me in mind of him that going in to his wife in the habit of a devil through his wifes imagination (and it is through imagination whereby the sign of the cross doeth work saith M ^r Hooker ) begat a child in a Devils shape likewise. Let not Master Calf hill be forgotten. It is impossible ( saith he) that Christ should be served as he ought, where a cross is erected in his service, because the mind is wrapped frō an heavenly consideration to the earthly creature; from the soul to the sense; from the heart to the eye. Thirdly, the dregs of the popish doctrine stick (to this hour) in the teeth of the people▪ in regard whereof the cross cannot but slay devotion For it even teacheth hypocrisy when it avoucheth an opus operatum in it: although the heart be not upright. And how many drugs are ingredients to this poison. For thus Bellarmine: the cross hath spiritualem virtutem, yea miram virtutem, even ex opere operato, and that ex institution divina, even to blessing with bare touching. The third hypocrisy of the cross upon the soul and sense together, is [Pollution.] For who feeleth not a popish qualme in the use of this sign: seeth not a popish humor nourished by it in the people? Is not our zealous retayle of the cross, our lovely entertaynement we give him in baptism, our devout gracing him there, as good as a spiritual Osculum, a spiritual amplexus of him, at least in show? In the show we have no excuse: seeing it setteth the alluring harlot before the eyes of incontinent men, against the wariness of our Forefathers, who set a wall of separation in the Church, even between honest men and women, that they should not have the sight of one another there. And consider we the effect that commonly followeth and falleth out. For as Oscula & amplexus, in that they are circumstances of adultery bodily, sunt libidin • s • for the delectatio tactus which is in them, though no concubitus be intended. So though the people have no intent to adore the Cross, and pretend that they use it for decency only, yet their delight in it, their • agernes to defend it, their malice to revenge it, their intemperate desire to have it, is a spiritual kiss & embracing, and delighting which doeth pollute them with adultery towards it. Against these occasions of hypocrisy in the Cross, he setteth up a paper wall that apposeth the counsel which a certain Council giveth: this may be amended. Si Past • res sedule deceant against the hypocrisy of opus operatum, and inform the people that the Cross doeth all per Divina virturis operationem, & san • tisici Numinis invocationem, which I repeal by an appeal even to the Adiaphoristea them selves, si quid in Ceremonijs, succreverit ex quo superstitio ca • sari possit, illud tollatur, would the Lord Christ or Paul (think ye) suffer a Pharisaical garment in the service and worship of God, after a virtue is once place in it, to make men holy, who so mightily invayeth against it for that occasion and purpose of hypocrisy which was in it: which is the case of every garment that deceiveth? Naaman thinketh the earth of Israel is able to make holy a sacrifice. The Jews think the ceremonies sanctify. Is teaching against hypocrisy sufficient here? Doth not Elisha deny the earth it self unto Naaman? God take away the Temples ceremonies them selves from the people? But the Fathers when they saw the Cross abused hipocritically contented them selves with a reproof of the hypocrisy, but still retained the cross it self, Cruces non solum in frontibus, sed in animabus quoque nostris habere debemus. Crucem non simpliciter digito in corpore, sed magna profecto fide in mente formare oporteret. Christus elegit vt in Cruce pēderet, vt ipsam crucem in cordibus fidelium figeret. Signum Christi ex pellit exterminatorem, si cor nostrum recipiat Salvatorem. Signaculum Christus in front est; signaculum in cord; in front vt semper confiteamur: in cord vt semper diligamus: in brachio vt semper operemur. The Fathers were not free from superstition in this sign, and these reproofs of theirs, show that the cross was an occasion of hypocrisy in their time that they wayned the people from this hypocrisy by these reproofs in vain: and the Fathers who lived to see the grossnes of the hypocrisy popish, they did not content them selves with such reproofs, but proceeded to the removal evē of the cross it self. So it is testified of John Wycliffe, that he took away all outward use of the cross, and taught only a cross spiritual to be used. Doth not Elmar run on a cross spiritual when he writeth of Q. Elizabeth that she was the English Helena that digged up the cross out of the rubbell where papists had buried it, in that she restored the Gospel? Sure our foundest writers teache, that popish rites renew a Jewish and a carnal worship, and are but veils which must away, that the inward veil of the heart may be removed the sooner, & God's worship become spiritual, whereby the cross is caste.

#Sect. 8. The hypocrisy of the cross in preposterating, evacuating, and polluting the understanding, which is the first part of the soul reasonable, is proved.

WE are now to examine the Crosses hypocrisy in the several powers of the soul reasonable. The understanding whereof (which is the first) the Cross is said to instruct like a very effectual teacher. Against which brag we take upon us to prove that the Cross is guilty against this comment, both for preposterating, and for evacuating, and for polluting [knowledge.] The preposterousnes of the cross appeareth herein, in that the sign is matched with the word, yea in some sort preferred before it. The least of which two hipocrisies can be no little sin. To begin with the first. Add the cross for a teacher to the word and pull down at once all the blockhouses which our writers from time to time have reared against the popish teaching of it, such as be these: though all other things may be taught by the eye, yet faith & religion cannot be taught save by the eat. Rom. 10.17. teaching to the eye is sufficiently performed by the Sacraments, the word & the Sacraments were appointed by Christ to teach us (saith one of our Opposites) a Crucifix was not, ergo, not a cross neither, which to add ( say our writers) is injurious unto them, & presumptuous against the Lord. as whē a scholar will choose him a book & not keep him self to that which his Master hath set him. At a word, it is the fountain of all Idolatry. Frō whence came the calf, but from a desire to have a visible sign of God's presence? And the heathenish Idolatry, whence? but frō a desire to advisible signs to the book of the creatures. The injury whereof, if God revenged so severily on them, what revenge reserveth he for us, who to the contumely of his word written seek to the cross to teach us? The seconde preposterousnes of this sign doeth yet much worse. It doeth not only match itself with the word quidquid sanctum Evangelium per lectionem nobis demonstrate, hoc idem Imagines per inspectionem. And a cross is able to teach a simple mā all things necessary to salvation. And the Cross is the sum & the abridgement of the Christian Faith. But it preferreth itself before it: Melius docet inter dum pictura, quam scriptura. Per picturam plus discimus brevi temporis spatio, quam longo sludio scripturarum. Imago mator est quam oratio. Which, whiles Saunders defendeth, he maketh the Cross better then a sermon. As also Martial doeth, The Cross is needful (saith he) though we may have godly instructions by reading of scriptures, and hearing good preachers, because every man cannot read scriptures or understand them when he readeth them: and every man cannot at all times so conveniently hear a good preacher, as he may see the sign of the Cross: and things seen do move more affection then those which be heard or read. Add to this, that for this common and continual; and this speedy teaching sake, they teache the Cross is worthy of worship and adoration. How can we find it in our hearts to make it a teacher to our selves, which cannot be done without giving show of justification to this injurious presumptuous, sacrilegious & Idolatrous teaching? But from this preposterating of the means of knowledge, come we now to the Evacuating of knowledge it self. Here our ground is what one of our writers layeth: The Cross and the Image must be removed in that he is an occasion of ignorance, Deut. 27. Cursed be he that leadeth the blind out of the way. And Levite. 19. Thou shalt not lay a stumbling block before the blind. First, the Cross is an occasion of ignorance, because he deceiveth those that look to be taught by him, it being a mute character and dumb sign, a blind guide, the sight whereof teacheth a man no more then it doeth an horse: yea more a doumbe Vicar of the Devil. Secondly, if it teach any it is to no good. Claudius Taurinensis would not suffer the Crosses and Images of his time to meddle with teaching, because it was not Christ glorified which they taught, but Christ according to the flesh. In which manner we know him no longer. A Council, yea our own Doctrine findeth fault with the picture of Christ, because it representeth him as man, not as God also: which is the Crosses lamnes. A French discourse that answereth a Placard about the Cross disclaymeth his teaching for that he presenteth the bodily sufferings of Christ only, and not the sufferings of his soul withal. Another of our Writers layeth against it, that it stayeth men in the general history of Christ his death, and neither teacheth for whom he died nor to what end, or what is the power of his death, or how we may apply the same to our selves. Thirdly, let the event speak. For as Bucer affirmed of our lande, touching ceremonies retained in general from the Papacie, They are nowhere cared for, where the Gospel is painfully preached, whereas in places where the Gospel is unknown, they are highly reverenced. That truly (by one) is applied to the sign of the Cross by name, They who most set by him, are grossly ignorant of the power of Christ's passion. May this be the event of the Cross and he no occasion of blindness▪ hen repeal we our writers reasoning against Images, proving they are the occasions of blindness, because they are most in request with the blind, and were brought in, in the deepest times of blindness; and sway most where Christ is most untaught and unknown: and then devise we also a better answer then a ^m bare denial, to the papists that reason thus: The Cross is a profitable teacher, because our lay people who are used to it, have more knowledge in the mysteries of religion, then some of your ministers who use it not. The third hypocrisy of the Cross in Mans understanding soul is a pollution. The old proverb is known, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an ill doctor teacheth naught but ill doctrine. Now the Cross is an ill teacher, it hath no instructions in it (saith one of our writers) but only the lessons of Cross Idolatry pēned by the Devil. The same affirmeth in another place, That the Cross teacheth errors many. If you ask me what errors? I ask again, what were the errors which Peeter taught by his conformity to the ceremonies of the Jews, by which he is said to have erred in the faith, & to have walked not with a right foot in the preaching of the Gospel. And there be many private errors which he broacheth. Agenerall faith that Christ died, sufficeth. The Cross is an holy sign of his death. The Cross doeth dedicate our children to God. The sign of the Cross doeth bless. with diverse others before rehearsed. Oh but it teacheth a diverse good things touching Christ Jesus crucified▪ True. As the ligatures of old, and as the charms of late have the name of Christ, and diverse other good things in them, which Augustine calleth honny mixed with poison vt perid quod dulce est, lateat quod amarum est. Ought not the milk be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vnmixt, which is taught in the Church? when there is but water mixed with wine, is it not a tapsterlike marchandizing to be abhorred? but here is mingled not only water with wine, but also puddle (moddy water at the least) I might say also poison. But suppose the Cross were never abused in teaching, doth this suffice to authorize a ceremony in the Church, That it doeth teach good things? The Cross teacheth not out of the scripture, the horn doth Omnia sacrificia cornuta fuerunt. and of the Godly it is said, exaltauit sicut vnicornis cornu meum: so that, unless a man hath a strong faith, tanquam cornu quo inimicos ventilet non est dignus immolari Deo. The Cross teacheth not out of the scripture, the dounge doth, cophinum stercoris in bono intellige sordes sunt sed fructum dant; Sordes cultoris dolores sunt peccatoris. If therefore the sign of the Cross as a profitable ceremony must be received because it teacheth good things (howbeit without the word) then by the same reason a minister may wear an horn as Moses is painted, and bear dounge upon his head, as the Jews once ashes, since these teach very good things, and that out of the word of God.

#Sect. 9. That the Cross is not a monitorium to the memory, but defileth it with the hypocrisy of preposteration, with vacuity of the remembrance pretended, and with forgetfulness of God, and of his word.

THE memory which is the next power of the reasonable soul receiveth great profit, men say, by the Cross, it being a monitorium of it. whereas in deed it will be found that the cross even here (also) defileth like an Harpie whatsoever he toucheth with all his hipocrisies. Concerning preposteration. First, whereas it is the meditation of the spiritual Cross of Christ that only pleaseth him, dum diligentissima pietate Christus ipse crucifixus attenditur, quam intuentes salutiferam crucem omni calumniantium superborum virus expellimus: the use of this sign poyzeth men down to a carnal crossing, and diveth (as it were) the spirit into the senses channel: And it is too carnal a remembrance, to which this preposteration bindeth, and unwarrantable by the word. For the Cross cannot be set up for a remembrance • , but upon that popish ground, Omne quod in recordationem Dei erigitur, acceptum illi esse constat. Which while our Writers refute by the word, we approve by our practice of the cross. Hereby also we open a gap to draw in Lutheranism, whose Images serve for like memorials: to draw in Adiaphorism, whose crosses are for like monuments: at a word to draw in all Idolatry. For if it be once lawful for us to bring into God's worship all memorials we will our selves, all Idolatry may be excused. And for the present we are indaungered to a participation with the crosses idolatry present: for under what pretence is it worshipped, save this of remembering and putting us in mind of Christ? So the counterfeit Augustine. So Damascene. So the Nicene Council, whose doctrine a late papist thus expresseth: Non aliam ob causam veneramur Imagines quam quod nos venire faciunt in memoriam exemplaris & inde affectus nostros monent. To clear our selves from all foresaid guiltiness, return we to the ancient [tenent] of the protestants, and to their reasoning of old. The old tenent is, that besides the word and the Sacraments, we are not to seek to any further memorials outward. The old reasoning is this: The Cross is a memorial not ordained by the Lord, therefore unlawful: chosen by our selves, therefore unlawful. Forbidden by God, therefore unlawful.

The second hypocrisy of the memory by the cross occasioned is the vacuity of the remembrance which is pretended. First, no memorial is lively and powerful for the sanctifying of our remembrance but such as God him self doeth bless: which are such as him self ordained; to which when we add the cross as we put them out of their function, so rob we our selves of the blessing annexed: annexed I say and tied to them, because the spirit that bloweth where he will, will only blow upon his own ordinance, & not to lackey after a cross or any mean else to which man presumeth to tie him all in vain. Secondly, outward signs hinder remembrance which should be perpetual as Jerome telleth us: We are now to keep (saith he) not a literal (by outward signs) but a spiritual memorial of God's law, which commandeth, vt non tam frequenter recordanda sint praecepta Domini, quam semper cogitanda. While we depend (saith one) on such a memorial as the cross, our remembrance vanisheth with the cross; whereas by the meditation of the word we may (as we are bound) remember Christ always without it. Hence Charles the great, infoelix memoria quae vt Christi memoretur qui nunquam à pectore iusti hominis recedere debet imaginariae visions est indiga. A third hypocrisy which in the memory the cross occasioneth is [pollution] through that forgetfulness of God and his word, wherewith we charge papists, when they set up images for remembrancers, out of Judges 3. Hose. 2. For what reason but that a cross should cause such forgetfulness of him, as well as other images do, being as warrantlesse by the word of God as they. But it was used by the Fathers as a common Monitorium, whereof thus Cyril, Haeo omnia recordari nos facit salutare signum: and counterfeit Augustine thus, Crucem nobis reliquit Christus in suae memoriam passionis. Our answer is the same which Cassander and Martial received: when the one pleaded the oil cannot be left: the other that the sign of the cross cannot be disvsed but we must needs dishonor the Fathers: why may not the Cross be left as well as other of their Ceremonies without injury to them? as their honny and their milk, yea their ministering of the communion unto infantes? Did not Hezekiah abolish the monument of the brazen serpent without dishonor unto Moses that set it up? The Council of Constantinople abolished the Agnus in memorial of Christ Jesus, without dishonor to their auncesters? what that the abuse of papists hath made it naked of all former privilege? For even papists them selves do yield out of the example of the brazen serpent, that Crosses and Images must be abolished, when the greater part abuse them, and not our own writers only. As for our selves, howe can we think better of a Cross which Jerome himself condemneth when it is borne in the bosom for Pharisaical: then of a Pharisees 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Pharisees added writings to their foreheads for memorials, and are condemned by papists themselves: and is not the cross of the forehead of the same rank? When the Pharisees did but enlarge their fringes which were Phylacteries & memorials by God ordained, we see our Lord reproveth them. In Jerome's time they added sharp thorns, to put them selves in mind by their pricking when they walked and sat down. Our Reverend Fathers not only enlarge baptism with the cross, under pretence it is a Philacterie, that is a preserver of memory, but also in enlarging it, disgrace it, even as the Pharisees disgraced the fringe of the Lord's ordaining with their inlargementes. What, that it is a thorn not in the Fringe of a Phariseie only, to prick him self for his own remembrance, but in the hand, as it were of a violent man, to hurt others, and to undo them?

#Sect. 10. That the Cross occasioneth, and breedeth a canker in the conscience, and that which the Opposites allege, that conscience is but a pretence, is anticipat.

THE third hypocrisy of the reasonable soul which the sign of the Cross occasioneth much (like a canker) breedeth in the conscience. Here (often) we hear our plea of conscience is but a pretence: we leap over blocks, & stumble at a straw (men say) which accusation would move us much, if it were made manifest, either what the blocks are over which we leap, or that the cross is no more then a straw, which we know to be a block, and that of stumbling, which, who so counselleth, let him remember Balaam. But what if it were a straw only? even a straw that doth offend, must be taken out of the way, as well as cummine and anniseed tythed. and wherein will our governors spare us, or show their mercy and clemency towards us, if not in a straw? For Conformitas in minoribus ceremonys, non est perinde necessaria to them, and yet this mote and gnatt (as they speak) is of great peril unto us, for that the conscience being tender (like the eye) a very mote molesteth it much: and strait in passage like an infantes throat, a very gnat is able to choke it, as once it did Pope Adrian. But the help is to reform our consciences. Alas tell us which way: we are loath to walk with a bare-foot conscience without any shoe from the word shaped; especially in the rough ways of subscription, where every step will (we fear us) be a gashe. Loth are we also in so holy a ground as baptism in steed of putting of foul shoes, to put on shoes on this foot of our soul so foul, as have not to this hour shaked of the dust of Rome's streets, which they ought to have done long since. And with the wings of our meditation we have soared over all the region of this controversy, and find no place where the sole of our foot may rest, or whence we may pluck an olive leaf for a pledge of peace to our selves. Here we meet with a doubting conscience, there with an accusing conscience, elsewhere with an audacious conscience: in another place with a benumbed conscience: there is also where we find a conscience superstitious. The sight hereof striketh many fearful thoughts into us. Better to keep us in the Ark where now we are, then to venter abroad, unless we can content our selves to rest (as it were) on the outside of it. Howbeit, who knoweth whether God will deny unto us even this hovering of a rauen about his Ark, and not throw us rather into the surges of that Deluge, wherewith we shall find our earth swallowed, whose place we have bought with so dear a price, there to taste of the unquietness of that conscience of which it is said: The wicked are like the raging Sea that cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. This I presage of our selves only, who must make shipwreck of a good conscience if we conform; for want of that full sail of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which some of our brethren (they say) have attained, which if they have, we count them blessed. They may congratulate to them selves the warm side they walk in; beak them selves in their sun-shine, and sail merrily whether the present gale doth carry them: while we in our leapers tente, and in the house of our mourning (as men rejected out of the host, and in whose face the Lord hath spirit) must go and mourn for our old sins which have made us unworthy of that place in the house of our God, which they enjoy, and which we our selves had once, till now that judgment is begun at his house: Who is he that saith, we may help all this if we will? Is there any such savor in the white of an egg as that any will taste it for delight? what pleasure now in the learning of some new trade or occupation whereby to live? what pleasure to bow down at the gates of other men (it may be of papists) for a morsel of bread? Last of all, What pleasure now in our old years when our strength (wasted in the labors of the Church) doeth fail us, and when the natural days draw on, of which men naturally use to say, we have no pleasure or delight in them. now I say to lie under the walls of those houses which once were ours, to bidd long farewell to our long-loved harbours, to go and embrace the thistle for a dwelling, and the rock for a covering, the dongue for a palate, the Ostriche or Pellicane for a companion: where Ishmael starveth, Hagar weepeth, Elias fainteth, and weary of life, desires to die, because by reason of disastrous times, he is no better then his fathers. Howbeit all this is welcome, all while there is walking in the midst of us one that is like to the son of man: solus non est, cui Christus Comes est. Omnis nobis vilis est poena, vbi pura Comes est conscientia. We know, we feel what force Abigaels persuasion hath: So shall it be no grief of mind. Whereas on the other side, howe do we fear the grief and knowledge of an ill conscience upon the eating of this fruit? We stand now on the holy of holies, and look up boldly and have hope. Nevertheless let it be proved that the throwing down of our selves into some other conscience, is warrantable by the word of God, and we will adventure to be borne up. But if this clause [in his ways] be left out in this temptation (as of old) then blame us not, if we shake, if we shiver, to see, to surveye, the stones, the flatts, upon which we are like to fall. For what? the douting conscience foundeth heavily like a shalme [to him that doubted to him it is sin] and if our hearts condemn us, God is greater then our hearts. The accusing conscience chattereth dolefully like a swallow or a crane: The Lord be merciful in this point. The benumbed conscience which seeth not what sin is committed when baptism is carted with a Philistines carte, will be awaked to sense and feeling by some judgment. The audacious conscience is too profane. It saith with Saul: I will be bold whether it be well or no. and as for the conscience superstitious, it crieth like a prisoner out of the chains wherewith the Council of Trente hath fettered it. It is damnable sin to omit any of the rites of baptism that be commanded. Neither will it be comforted or reformed by all our Writers, standing for our Christian liberty against this bondage. By this it appeareth, to what exigent this unworthy rite hath brought us. Vnhappy times you must hear again the old complaints of the Germane Divines, when the Adiaphorism ceremonies were pressed on them: the heart sigheth, the mind is troubled, the spirit is sad, the joy of the holy ghost it self is obscured. Have pity upon us, have pity upon us, O you our governors, how long will you feed us with that you tread on? how long fill us with the puddle & the mudd? how long make us in your presence as a troubled & muddy spring, & all for a beggerlie ceremonies sakes? Are ye not led from such a course to an abolition of the cross by the example of Epiphanius? he taketh down Anablathaes Image, and forbiddeth all other Images, because occasions of scrupulousity in the Church. And as for the conscience superstitious, (which this sign breedeth) may it be any other way remedied save exemplo omissionis? For besides that the scripture (like an Notrh wind) scattereth away all the human constitutions that tie men's consciences to themselves as it were with a cord, or burden the soul, or enthrall liberty, or bring the free men of the Lord into subjection, we have a plain censure that wipeth the Cross out of our Leyturgie when there is found an elementi servitutis in it: as also every ceremony else a Cuius inviili servitute populus abstrahi se aegre patitur.

#Sect. 11. The hypocrisy and preposteration of the Cross, in the Will, in respect of the means for •• cayning to the right end, is proved.

THE fourth hipocrie of the Cross is in the Will: which when is upright, when it desireth bonum sub ration boni for the ende, and electeth bonum propter bonum in the means whereby the end is compassed. This sincerity of the election, the cross preposterateth first of all. in that it is chosen being an unlawful ceremony before those that are lawful: being a tradition of man's before God's precept: and being but Annisseed and Cumin before weightier things of the Law. For consider we the Cross (first) as an ancient custom, Master Bucer speaking against the consecrating of the Font, sunt perquam multae constitutiones Patrum (saith he) &c. there be very many constitutions of the Fathers and many observations of theirs pertaining to the discipline of the Church, which are taken out of the word of God it self: these (alas) most severely are trodd under foot, when they seem to be contrary to our humors. what a preposterous thing is it then to borrow those rites frō the Fathers which as they agree not with the word of God, so they serve Satans turn amongst too many mē, for the confirming of manifest superstitions & opinions plainly magical. That this lighteth on the Crosses back in comparison of other ancient observations, an instance in one or in two of them will make plain: when Cassander strove for the Chrism and pleaded the antiquity of it, it was replied he dealt absurdly to arripere from the Fathers, Quod humanum, omittere quod diuinum (to wit) the government of the Church communi consilio Praesbyterorum. This may we not apply to some who enforce the Cross upon us by reason of the antiquity of it, when in the mean time they shut the door against this government, which is confessed by some of their own to have been used in the primative Church, and that long before the Cross; that which the vewe of the Fathers doth confirm. Again it was an ancient custom that none should receive the Lord's Supper empty handed, but guie somewhat to the poor, which certain Deacons did distribute to the needy that did work, the idellbeing excomunicated out of the Church: of which thus Bucer once again g, Nimis magno. &c. It is too great a shame for this Kingdom that this parte of Ecclesiastical reformation hath been hitherto neglected: whereas in the Low countries it hath been long a go received, where nevertheless the true profession of the Gospel is punished with death. I ask, is there not a preposteration to renew a Cross so zealously, while we burry so carelessly this ancient custom? raising up in the room thereof new courses of our own which do no good. Again, there was in old time a custom, there should be a communion every Lord's day, everyone not receiving without lawful excuse being excommunicated, which Charles the great in some sort renewed, and which Bucer advised King Edward in this land to restore again. what now? There is not any one piece of the canon for the Cross which is not eagerly pursued, whereas all the Canons made for the Sacrament of the Supper, it self lie low in the dyrt: men thinking it sufficient to come for fashion once a year, as they were wont to do in popery, and that without all examinatiō (for the most parte) reconciliatiō or separatiō of offenders though most notorious. Last of all, it was the custom of the primative church to have no assembly without a sermō (as shall be shown in the next chapter,) which through the hypocrisy of the Cross is now neglected: this rite must have place, whether Preacher or preaching have any or no. Quo tamen neglecto frustra in alijs constituendis apice sci: & cultu ministri de gestu rituque sacrorum opera sumitur. Inducitur. n. ita parieti vicioso & labanti tectorium quod ruinas & hiatus diu non poterit tegere: vel erunt haec potius sepulchra incrustata intus refer ta foeditate abhominabili. Secondly, consider the Cross as a custom which for the present is in use, and we cannot miss of another preposteration in it. We prove hereby the papists prefer their own traditions before God's Laws, because they punish more severely the breach of one of their own fasts then when the Law of God is broken by fornication or the like. It is also observed amongst Saul's hipocrisies that he was more ready to punish with death the breach of a Law of his own in Jonathan, then to punish the people with the least mulcte, when they brake the law of God in eating blood, which fact of his also when an Ambrose allegeth to make the sin of a man sinful that doeth break a Lenten-fast, he is censured as one in error. Ought not the Non-Residentes, the Idell and Idol ministers be rather punished, who break God's Law in feeding (not on the blood of beasts) but on the blood of the souls of men, then those poor Jonathan's transgressors of an human law, and that in a trifle, whose deserts to the Church have not been so small but that they call for a better reward? What a thing is this there should be no law to punish a loyterer that hideth his talent in the ground, to put out a dumb dog that cannot bark, or that a drunkard, a fornicator, a gamster, should scarce have their names called into questiō; nay that papists them selves should be used kindlie, while the painful and profitable Minister is pursued even to proscription for a Cross, and is made the Ass that must die for a straw, when the Non pastor ovium, sed pastus ovibus, much like to the Fox or the Woulfe escapeth in his soul murder? Chrysostom began with the life of the Ministers, he did not for the breach of a Ceremony thrust out the moste painful that were in the Church, but those who answered not to their calling: A sacris arcebat quod negaret frui Sacerdotali honor cos oportere qui vererum Sacerdotum vitam non sequerentur. We taking on the other side run within the censure of Augustine, sed hoc nimis doleo. &c. This I much bewail, that the commandments of the holy Scripture, which are most wholesome, are neglected, and all things are so full with so many presumptions, that he is punished more grievouslie that toucheth the earth with his bare feet per octauas suas, then he that shall drown his mind in drunkenness. A like hypocrisy unto this is that which an Historiographer mentioneth, Nonnulli islis neglectis omnem scortationem rem quidem indifferentem arbitrantur, sed tamen de diebus festis tanquam de vita deceriant. Is not the breach of the Cross more severely punished then drunkenness? Is there not more stir to uphold this Ceremony, then the preaching of the word? We cry out upon the papists, because they take more care about the ceremonies of the sacrament, thē about the Sacramentit self. as because he will have Missa sicca, without consecration when he is on the sea, because of the logging of the ship. On dry lande when he consecrateth, he will not minister the Wine ad evitanda quaedam pericula. Last of all, though the color of red wine represonteth Christ's blood far better to the edifying of the people, yet white wine must be used to prevent the stayning of the clothes of the Altar. What if (as Diogenes once) some bid us here, Begin with our selves? who although it be apparent, that integrity of Baptism and the people's edification would be far better provided for, by the removal of the Cross, yet keep it still, being as loath to see it stained, as the papists their Altar clothes, and to see it fall to the ground as they, as they some drops out of their Chalice, an hypocrisy so much the nearer touching the Cross, in that it came in with the Cross, witness Tertullian: who in the same place where he speaketh of this sign hath these words: Calicis & panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur. Thirdly, consider the Cross, as retained in our Church to win the Papist (upon supposal) it is the best that might be chosen amongst all his other rites: which, is it not preposterous? A Council crieth out upon them, who being under penance, abstain (in deed) from Wine and flesh, as they are enjoined, but in the mean time in tantum delitijs indulgent vt delitio sius his interdistis aliorum ciborum vel potionem appetitu vivere cognoscantur. Jerome invayeth against their hypocrisy, who pretending to fast from Bread and from Water, used (notwithstanding) quasdā sorbitianculas magis delicatas, which they did sorbere non Calais sed concha. Augustine lastly thinketh it an hypocrisy execrable to drink no wine, to eat no flesh, and yet to have pomorum nonnullorum expressos succes vini speciem satis imitantes, vel etiam suavitate vincentes. After the proportion hereof we exclaim against papists that will eat no flesh, and yet swill wine: and gobble sweet delicates which have greater power to stir up lust. Now here that of Plato would do well: Numnam & nos tales sumus? For we pretend hatred and zeal against the very reliquies of popery, and thereupon defile their Oil, quench their Tapers, spew out their spittell, when in the mean time their Cross and Surplice we keep in with might and main, which are Idoli sorbitiunculae magis delicata, that do vincere superstitiosa suavitate, and more imitate speciem papalem, and stir lust popish a great deal more. Here I expect the old song, It is not their cross we use, which savoreth it not of their fancy who thinking it unmeet to eat swine's flesh, hanged up their bacon for a year in the smoke, and then did eat it; as if it were now the same no longer. Nay hath our Cross had so much changing, as a years drying in the smoke cometh to? It seemeth not so much: since our diversity is in the different manner only of our using, which maketh no difference that may be sufficient in case we mean to keep our ground against the papists. We lay to their charge a communion with Corpocrates in worshipping Images: with the Hieraclionitae in anointing the dead with oil: with the Tatiani in abstaining from marriage: with the Pepusiani in suffering women to be priests: with the Manichees in abstaining from meats: with the Angelici in worshipping Angels: with the Apostolici and Hieraclitae in their Monks, Nuns & Friars with the like. When yet our own hearts do know they can shift with distinctions to make appear (for manner and meaning) a certain distance between these heritiques and themselves.

#Sect. 12. Howe the Cross is urged by our Opposites for sinister ende and not in sincerity.

WE have seen how the Cross defloureth the election of the Will, which is for the means. Now proceed we to examine how it defileth the intention of it, which is for the ende. Singlenes is the virtue here which this commandment doeth enjoin, which aimeth at the right ende of all human actions which is the glory of the Lord. This singleness we plead for our selves like to the Thaborites, who when they were accused for purging their Churches, made this reply, they were wooden Images and Crosses which they had thrown down, and not silver and golden stuff, such as Sigismond had taken away. O that the world would consider but that of a Roman Judge, cui bono, who stand for their gain, who for their conscience? who for wooden, who for silver and golden stuff? would not singleness of heart be hereby found out on which side it standeth? yes, or else Paul reasoneth weakly, whē he proveth himself single-hearted because he suffered in his refusal of Jewish ceremonies: whereas his adversaries conformed them selves to enjoy their ease & their credit in the world. And Theodoret after him, sufficit vel perpessionum testimonium ad ostendendam veritatem predicationis. Let no man (then) put us to business, they are the marks of Jesus which we bear. God grant our Opposites a godly care, they bear not the marks of hypocrisy wherewith a Jesuit beyond the seas hath branded them. The Protestants (saith he) abolish some of our traditions, but they are lean ones, fat traditions they keep still, and will not leave them. To wipe away this imputation it were to be wished: first of all that our Oppos • es would stand less for the superfluous Lordly pomp, which the Hierarchy of the papists hath left behind in divers churches, against the position of John Wycliffe, ditare ecclesiam, est contra regulam Christi. Did not Moses forbid that superfluity should be brought in to the use of the Tabernacle? and our Divines do they not conclude from hence, that where there is a superfluity in church goods, there abatement should be made to a mean, that so the wants of the church elsewhere may be supplied? For even an heathen Trajan him self thinks it unfit the milte should be suffered to swell, to the pyning of the rest of the members, as now we see it cometh to pass, whiles some few do superabounde, the country parishes are in want. Hence doth there arise the ignorant ministry, the very bane of all things, as God himself showeth when he bringeth in a Levite seeking where he may serve: for the origen of all corruption amiddest his people. Secondly, To wipe away this imputation, it were to be wished our Opposites would less stand on the fat tradition of sole ordaining, sole excommunicating, of confirming young men, which as John Hus longe since hath detected, have been reserved unto Bishops ad sui exaltationem propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis & honoris, & vt episcoporumi solemnitas & necessitas plus credatur. Thirdly, to wipe away this imputatiō, it were to be wished our Opposites would stand less on the fat tradition of Nonresidencies and Pluralities, against which, how many Canons and Councils fight, as against most horrible merchandise, Clericus ab instanti tempore (saith one of them and which shall serve for all the rest) non connumeretur in duabus ecclesijs: negotiationis enim hoc est & turpis lucri proprium, & ab Ecclesiastica consuetudine pemtùs alienum. Fourthly, for the wiping away of this imputation, it were to be wished our Opposites would stand less on the fat tradition of Substitutes and Curates, which ancient times would not endure, as who allowed not a Conductitious Presbyter to be an out leate for the laziness of others. Fifthly, To wipe away this imputation, it were to be wished our Opposites would stand less on the fat tradition of rigor in ceremonies: as in which a Papist or a Brownist would draw suspitiō of many hipocrisies. First, they will suspect a spirit of Demetrius pretending the public, but intending own private state in them, who Cry out, No Ceremony, No Bishop, and thereupon proceed in such rigor against the Preachers of the word as give show they use the ceremonies for a mean to thrust out of Sibaris every clamorous cock that interrupteth their quiet sleep, and for an Ostrachisme to expel out of Athens, qui excellunt in paynfulnes, in faithfulness, in sobriety of life, least they should foil the laziness, the man pleasing, and the flaunt of others. Secondly, a Brownist will suspect that they are frogs of Euphrates, and not single before the Lord that take on against good men, because they like not the corruptions of of Church whereby they gain & live, for as much as it is a property of those frogs to crook moste when their waters are nearest to drying up. Thirdly, a Brownist will suspect he is a Demas who was with the reformation till the taste of the present world changed his understanding against it, and he will resemble him to Islebius the Master in Germany, of whom the common proverb rann, that he defended the Chrism and the Oil, vt ipse vnctior discederes. And to Georgius Major the scholar, who when he turned Adiaphorist, had these verses made upon him:

Fourthly, A Brownist will suspect a Pharisaical spirit in them, laying burdens upon others, which they will not touch them selves with their least finger: who charge good men with authority in things indifferent, wherein they keep not the Law themselves. This is to be seen in their apparel against the statute: in their eating flesh on fish days against the law: in their neglect of more profitable Canons; yea by their omission of the like ceremonies, as the Alba, the Cappa, the Casula, the Baculus Pastoralis, all which are enjoined by law as well as the Cross and Surplice, because named in K. Edw communion book, to which our Law and Rubric sendeth us. Is it a small thing that we are able to object as Paul did once, they them selves keep not the Law wherewith they press us? Fifthly, A Brownist will suspect, the heart is not single in them who use extremities in these trifles, both because of the ancient rule Qui asperitatibus student suas illi magis quam Dei causas probantur attendere and also of our moderne tenent against the papist, which is this, their cruelty by fire and faggot showeth they seek not the glory of God, but their own willes and pleasures. Sixthly, A Brownist will suspect their heart is double, that make Decrees for the strengthening of their own state rather then for the reformation of God's house, where that Augustine hath place, Non iura dicenda sunt vel putanda iniqua hominum Constituta, faisum{que} est quod à quibusdam non recte sentientibus dici solet, id esse ius quod ei qui plus potest vtile est. For as much then as our Lord when he saw gain was intended by the Oxen of the out-court, howsoever the furtherance of God's service was the thing that was pretended, took a whipp and drove them out, least the house of his Father should become a shopp of Marchandize: and whereas our forefathers also have hereupon thrust out of the Churchyard all things whatsoever exposed for gain; these ceremonies (to whom gain is godliness) must be scourged out, rather then be permitted to be a scourge unto good Preachers, that so Oxen and Asses may keep in not only in the out-court, but in the holy place and all.

#Sect. 13. That the Cross preposterateth, evacuateth, and polluteth the affection of fear.

THE fifth hypocrisy of the reasonable soul neasteth itself in the affections of the heart: the first of which is fear. This is preposterated by the ceremonies in them who conform for fear of man. For quae ex necessitate est, fides non est, saith the Council. And quisquis metu potestatis veritatem occultat, iram Dei super se provocat (saith Augustine ) and melius est pro veritate pati supplicium, quam pro adulatione recipere been ficium. For this cause they are better to be judged of who at this hour do suffer, then they who are within the compass of that censure which the Germane Divines past over them, who yielded to the Interim, not with an upright and single heart, but ad grati ficandum Caesarem only. Doth not Paul make it heinous in Peeter that he conformed to the ceremonies of Moses law, to please the Jews of whom he stood preposterously in fear? which fear of his (also) he termeth gross dissimulation? Secondly, the Cross evacuateth fear, partly by reason of the popish persuasion that it driveth the Devil away, even ex opere operato, though a man have not the fear of God, as Julian had not; and partly because it is a playgame of it self, as well as a Cross raised out of a toumbe on Easter day, to represent the rising of Christ. Men think they may be ever bold with the work of their own hands, and seeing the Cross is not from heaven (as every Baptismes sign should be) naught can be in it to procure reverence▪ as well Lanctantius, si religio &c. If religion be a divine thing, and nothing be divine but that which is heavenly, the Image must want all religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is from the earth. Now for this cause he must be removed from the service of God, in Bucer's judgment, together with every ceremony else that is an occasion profani Iudi, illudit. n. nobis continenter Satan, & seria Domini salutaria convertere in fuos noxios ludos conatur. As every occasion of playfulnes is dangerous in the service of God, because of Satan's illusion, so also by reason of Mans For know we not we are as prone to trifle in the service of God, as is the child to play in the market. Thirdly, The Cross polluteth fear even with an Irony and contempt, it being subject to irreverence as much as the Image is of which Lactantius, There is no religion, where there is an Image. of which Varro, they took away all fear of the God's who first set up Images to them▪ Lastly, of which thus Augustine, simulacrorum (so Crucium ) stoliditate facile contemnitur Deus. When Alexander met Iaddo the high Priest of Jerusalem in his priestly attire, he fell down & adored because God had appeared to him before he came out of Macedonia in the very same habit, what hence? the profane is not brought to reverence by the appearance of any Ceremony whatsoever, unless it have assistance of a Majesty from the Lord, which the Apparel of Iaddo had: but the sign of the Cross hath not. The sign of the Cross must be made (say some) by us as well as by the ancient Fathers to make profession against the Atheist, that is amongst us. But if any Atheist be amongst us to laugh at Christ crucified, let him be nailed to a Cross, but let not a Cross be made with a finger against him, which will but increase his laughing. Dionisius mentioneth that some laugh at the answers which the Godfathers made for the child, as if alius pro alio were Baptized. Gregory Nazianzen reporteth, that Julian laughed at the sufflations of Baptism. Is there not as great an occasion given in the sign of the Cross towards laughter and contempt, as in either of these? The former of which is abolished by the Churches that are reformed as a ridicle, the later by our selves and all. Because the Jews laughed at the Papists for painting Moses like a Devil with a pair of horns, the sounder papists would have removed it, it being an error of antiquity brought in by Jerome interpreting [Moses facies erat cornuta] instead of [erat radians.] The profane deriding our masking attire and iuglinge gesture in our Church. now we have as great cause to have them abolished, they being (if ancient) yet ancient errors, like to the horns of Moses.