Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 1 · Section 12
#Sect. 12. Reaſons with obiections anſwered, why the Croſſe may not bee entertayned by vsus, &c.
WE hauehave ſtrengthened our Antecedent, and prooued the Croſſe to bee an Idoll among the Papiſtes. Iſa. 52.11. 2. Cor. 6.17 Apoc. 18 4.Now muſt wee ſhewe 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 vſed by vsus notwithſtanding, becauſe with vsus (ſay they) it is no Idoll. Firſt, we are not onelyonly forbidden to continue in our own vncleannes, but alſo to touch any vncleannes of [theirs] as if that which is vnclane with Idolaters, could no way be made cleane to vsus. They who thinke otherwiſe ſpeak the language of Aſhdod. What though the papiſtes vſe the croſſe, what is that to vsus? Iuſt ſo Baronius, aCaeſa. Baron. Annal. Anno 132.ſiquis dicat Gentiles habuiſſe in vſu aquam luſtralem, quid tum? And we vſe the Croſſe which they vſe, not imitating it, but correcting it rather. Iuſt ſobSuar. in Tho. tom. 1. diſput. 54. ſect. 7. Suarez, We worſhip Images, which Gentiles worſhip, non imitando ſed corrigendo. Secondly, It is with vsus in the ſervice of God an image which without warrant we hauehave made to ourſelues,cDoct. Bilſ. ag. Apolog. p. 4. pag. 340. Doct. Fulk annſw. to Rhem. Act. 17. ſect. 4.5. Perk. in reform. Cathol. ca. de imag. therefore an Idoll. It is an Image conſecrated (that is) addicted to holy vſe,dDoct Bilſ. Ibid p. 34…. therefore an Idoll. It is a meane to many, whereby they worſhip, and many hold it a part of Gods worſhip, thereforeeDoct. Bilſ. ibid p. 345 348. an Idoll, to them eſpecially, who ſerue hereinfAuguſt, de conſenſ. euang. lib. 1. cap. …8. Hieron. in Hoſ. ca. 4. quod ipſi fingunt euen their owne fancies. Thirdly, There is agIoh. Reynold de Idololat. lib. 2. ca. 1. ſect. 1. Metaphoricall Idoll that tranſgreſſeth, and an IdolatriehThom. Aquin. comment. in epiſt. ad coloſſ. 3. lection. 2. ſecundum ſimilitudinem, although not ſecundum ſpeciem [per accidens] though not [per ſe.] Whereof, let them that be able excuſe this ſigne, for we can not. Be there a fewe in the Realme (thinke ye) that doe put aſmuch confidence in the croſſe, as the couerous in his wealth? Now if any ſhall ſay, that for this the croſſe muſt be no more remoued, then wealth and riches, we hauehave to anſwer, that all thelHoſpin. de re templar. Fathers remoue golde, and all pompous ornaments out of the Church, & all carnall laſciuiouſnes in painting or ſinging, and eueryevery thing elſe, which by the couetous or vncleane, or any other, might in likelihood be made an Idoll there. Fourthly, There is an Idoll [reatu] through guilt remayning, and an Idoll [actu] by actuall cōmitting Idolatrous ſinne, and the ſigne of the Croſſe is an Idoll with vsus of the firſt ſort, if not of the ſecond. Idolatrous worſhip is the ſoule of an Idoll (ſay ſome of our Oppoſites) therefore ſeeing we worſhip him not, his ſoule is departed from him. Firſt,mAuguſt. epiſt. 19. col. 76.77. Augustine accounteth, that the ceremonies of the Iewes are dead, and therevpon argueth that they were to be aboliſhed. Now, the Croſſe ought to be as dead vntounto vsus totally (for it is not better thé the ceremonies of the Iewes) and we hauehave as great neede to burie his carcaſe, which if it be left aboue the grounde, will not the ſtincke thereof be intollerable? And ſeeing our reviving of him, with a new ſtyle which we ſay is not idolatrous (for as yet he liueth in poperie) beareth ſhew (at leaſt) of fauor to him, remēber we the ancient canon,nLeo epiſt. 90. ad ruſtic. Narbonenſ. cap. 7. 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 aliue. Secondly, we muſt not compare any creature of God with an Idoll which is the creature of the Deitie: if we keepe our ſelues within the bounds of the ſcripture, we muſt cōpare the Croſſe with an harlot. Say we (then) the Croſſe is no Idoll nowe, becauſe it hath no adoration, which is the ſoule of an Idoll? this is as if we ſhould reaſon, this woman ceaſeth to be an adultreſſe any longer, becauſe now at this preſent ſhe is not actually in that copulation, which is the life, & the very ſoule of adulterous crime. No, an harlot remaineth an harlot though her ſinne be paſt: & ſo the ſigne of the croſſe an Idol, though his Idolatry be ceaſed amongſt vsus. And looke what lawes are made againſt the bodily harlot (although repenting) they are all in equitie lyable againſt the Croſſe, although purged throughly from former Idolatry, which I would to God it were. He (then) that will not permit his Prieſt that ſtandeth before him, and miniſtreth vntounto him, Lenit. 21.7.to marry an harlot (though repenting) will he endure the ſigne of the Croſſe (the harlot her ſelfe) to miniſter before him in his Sacrament? Yea, to be married to his Sacrament, and matched with it? Deut. 23.1…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 ſigne of the Croſſe (the harlot her ſelfe) to the defiling of his houſe, to be brought not onelyonly into his temple, but alſo into the ſeruice thereof? and there to be rated at ſuch a [price] as that the holy prieſts themſelues, that before did miniſter before him, muſt now become a price for her, to bring a greater ſinne vponupon our Church, then that which Ioell taxed once, they gaue the child for the harlot: Ioel. 3.3.ſeeing they are the Fathers themſelues, euen the Fathers of many in Chriſt, that are ſold by vsus for the Croſſe?Deut. 23.1… 2.3, &c.
Laſt of all, hee that will not permit the iſſue of the harlot, to beare anie office in his congregation, till both her memorie and her blood bee quite worne out, will hee endure the ſigne of the Croſſe (the harlot her ſelfe) and that euen flagranti crimine, while her fornication reaketh, & Idolo viuo, (as ſpeaketh Tertullian) while the Idoll (the Croſſe abroad) is yet liuing? I referre it to indifferent iudgement, whether this bee not like that rebellion of a wife, whē ſhe putteth her louer into office, in the houſe of her husband, if not in diſpite of his teeth (as vſually we ſpeake) yet ſure vnderneath his noſe. Fiftly, there is an Idoll more ſtrictly taken, and an Idoll of larger ſence, which will include the Croſſe. For the better vnderſtanding hereof, we muſt borrow a diſtinction from theoThom. Aquin. comment. in epiſt. ad Coloſſ. ca. 1. lection. 4 ſcholemen, by which a thing may bee guiltie of Idolatry, eſſentialiter, participatiue, or cauſaliter: which our doctrine at home doth backe, that is confirmed by Act of Parliament; Affirming that to be an Idoll in Gods ſeruice, which is,oHomil. ag. perill of Idolat. p. 1. pap. 4.5. hath bene, or is like to be worſhipped. What [is] worſhipped by our ſelues, that is an Idoll eſſentially. What [hath] bene worſhipped, or [is now] worſhipped abroad by others, that is an Idoll by [participation]. What is [likely] to bee worſhipped, that is an Idoll [cauſing] idolatrie in time to come. In which ſenſe Gedeons Ephod may be termed an IdollpAuguſt. quaeſt. vet. teſtament. lib. 7. q. 41 Vazq. de adorat. diſput. 1. ca. 3. quodāmodo; and that it may be euen before it was adored. And hereby are many obiection anſwered. Our Writers denie an Image in the Church (ſay ſome) to be an Idoll, in caſe it bee not worſhipped. True, an Idoll eſſentially, as many of them as deſire to hauehave Images thruſt out of the Church (of which ſortqIoh. Reynold de▪ Idololat. lib. 2. ca. 2. ſect. 2. there be a great number) they hold them guiltie of Idolatrie by participation and by occaſioning, or els why will they thruſt them out? A ſecond obiection is wont to be made. If the ſigne of the Croſſe be an Idol with vsus, then muſt men ſeperat from our Church, and from our Baptiſme; which followeth not. From Idolls (eſſentiall) men ought to ſeperate by the example of the Levites and the two Tribes that made ſeparation from the calues of Ieroboam. 2. Cron. 11.13, 16.From Idolls by participation and occaſion men are to keepe their owne ſelues pure, but not to ſeperat, by the enſample of the Godly, who ſeperated not from the Temple of God, for Damaſcus Altar there, or from the church becauſe of her high places. 2. King. 16.11.1. King. 22.43.It is obiected once more againſt vsus, If our ſigne of the Croſſe bee an Idoll, then our Miniſters that doe make it are Idolaters, and our Churches idolatrous alſo. This followeth not neither. For denomination being from the forme, and the Croſſe not being formally an Idoll amongſt vsus, but materially (I ſpeake in compariſon to the Croſſe popiſh, in regard whereof, we may bee ſaide to vſe that, which is an Idoll, but we doe not vſe it idolatrouſly) therefore as DoctorrDoct Fulk ag. Greg. Mart. cap. 3. ſect. 20. Fulke concludeth of the Lutherans for hauing Images in their Churches, the ſame muſt be ſaid of all thoſe Proteſtantes that will retayne Croſſes, they ſinne againſt the firſt two commaundements (through Idolothiſme) not directly thorough Idolatrie, and therefore they may not be termed Idolaters. Howbeit by way of reduction, Idolothiſme is in ſome ſort guiltie of Idolatrie, as ſheweth the Apoſtle, who in ſteed of ſaying Fly from Idolothiſme, ſaith, flye from Idolatrie. This Idolatrie by reduction what is it els, 1. Cor. 10.24.but idolatrie by participation, as doth appeare by the 18.20. and 21. verſes following. But this participation is not in our Croſſe (will our Oppoſites ſay) who firſt, leaſt happily they ſhould miſtake vsus, we defire to recount the auncient diſtinctionaChryſoſt. Pet. Martyr in 1. cor. 10.16. 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 Croſſe, not with a totall communion, but with a participation in part onelyonly, we thus bring in our euidence againſt him.