Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 1 · Section 16
#Sect. 16. An obiection of the Oppoſites anſwered, ſaying, they may vſe the Croſſe, becauſe they hauehave chaunged the Croſſe. Though there be foure ſorts of things that may be chaunged, yet the Croſſe is none of them.
HOwbeit; there is an hope in our Oppoſites, cleanely ynough to ſhift themſelues euen of all this. How can we in Croſſe and Surplice participate with the Papiſts (ſay they) ſeeing we hauehave changed the Popiſh Croſſe, and hauehave altered it from what it was, & it is not the ſame. Firſt, the conſequent hereof ſoundeth not well in their mouthes, who wereaM. Fenner. ag. Doct. Bridges in his treat. of the Croſſe. wont to reaſon we may vſe the Croſſe although an Idol, becauſe the ſunne though Idolized, becauſe this excuſe ſuppoſeth the Croſſe were vnlawfull if hee were the ſame vnchaunged, where as that reaſon matcheth the Croſſe with the ſunne which remaineth, we know, vnchaunged and is euen Numero, ſtill the ſame. Secondly, the conſequence is vnſound, becauſe of things that may be chaunged from their abuſe, the ſigne of the Croſſe is none. The firſt ſort of theſe are the things of the Idolater not Idolatrous. Which by the chaunge of fire and water, became lawfull in Moſes 1Num. 31.…3.lawe, like the garment of the Leaper not2Leuit. 14.8. leaprous, which being waſhed might be put on▪ wheras the Croſſe becauſe it ſelfe is become leaprous (as hath bin proued) ought to be burnt, as alſo becauſe it was at the firſt (when it was at the beſt) but haybM. Calf…. ag. Mart. art. 5. fol. 125. and ſtubble which the12. Cor. 3.11. fire of the word hath in other reformed Churches long ſince conſumed. The ſecond ſort, are things Idolatrous, but without ſtate in Idolatrous ſeruice. As thecAuguſt. ad Publicol. epiſt. 154. fountaine of any Idols water, & the ſun in the firmament which beholdeth without alldTertul. de ſpectac. contagion, the Idolatry that is committed to him: whereas the Image of the ſunne (to which the ſigne of the Croſſe now aunſwereth) for that ſtate which he hath had in worſhip Idolatrous, is not tollerable in a Chriſtian congregation, for who can endure there theeIoh. Reynold. de Idololat. li. 2. c. 3. ſect. 25. fire of the Perſians? thefIbid. ſect. 25. Coloſſus of the Rhodians, and thegSect. 55. Romans? or his Image of a man termedhSect. 51. Bell in Aſſyria?lLib. 1. ca. 5. ſect. 17. Baal in Paleſtina? The third ſort are things which hauehave bene in ſtate Idolatrous: howheit, becauſe they hauehave bene inſpired by God with a purpoſe they ſhould continue, therefore they may, and ſometines muſt be changed to the vſe of their firſt inſpiration. But how ſhall we know whether they bee inſpired by God? to wit, by this marke, A deo inſpiraia ſunt (ſaithmTertul de coron. millit. Gen. 4.22. Gen. 3.21. Tertullian) qua procurant meras vtilitates, certa ſub ſidia, honeſta ſolatia, neceſsitatibus humanae vita. As the Mechanicall arts deuiſed by Cains Idolatrous poſteritie were from God, aſwell as the skill of clothing was, which he taught Adam immediatly. To this the ſcholemen doe agree.nTho. Aquin. p. 3. qu. 25. art. 3. reſponſ. ad 2. Aquinas teaching in rebus fructuo ſis gentilium, we may communicate. Where as in rebus infructuoſis (ſuch as are the Croſſe & Surplice) we may not come neare them. The fourth ſort, are the ordinances of the Lord, ſuch as are the holy Sacraments which muſt euen after abuſe Idolatrous, which [chaunge] from former ſuperſtition, be to Gods ſeruice reſtored againe. For that haec oBucer. in Cenſur. Leiturg. Anglic. ca. 9. pa. 472.nobis nulla poteſt, impiorum vitiare peruerſitas, theypAuguſt. de Bapt. cont. Donatiſt. li 6. ca. 25. paſſing through their abuſe without contagion, as theqDecret. p. 2. cauſ. 15 qu. …. ca, 5. ray of the ſunne ſtriketh into the dounghill, and is not defiled. What meane (then) our Oppoſites to alleadgerAuguſt. ad deograt. epiſt. 49. qu. …. Auguſtine likening well of Pagan rites, when they be altered to the true God? For hee meaneth of Sacrifices and of Temples which were commanded in Moſes lawe. Are Croſſe and Surplice commaunded alſo? No more, are Temples commaunded nowe (will they reply) concerning theſe, they hauehave had no ſtate in Idolatrous ſeruice, ſuch as Croſſe and Surplice hauehave, they are not meere inuentions of man, as the Croſſe and Surplice are. When circumſtances doe not hinder, they beare the [Marke] formerly mentioned, of a purpoſe in God to continue them ſtill (to wit, commoditie and needfull vſe) which ſtampe, and ſuperſcription of Gods, the Croſſe and Surplice cannot ſhewe to prooue themſelues his lawfull coyne. They therefore who reaſon, A Temple may be ſtill continued, therefore a Croſſe, trace the footeſteppes of Tertullians adverſaries. We vſe phiſicke though it be conſecrat to Aeſculapius, therefore a garland too: and of the Papiſts our owne adverſaries, We may retaine a Pagans temple, therefore hissDurant. de rit. lib. 1 cap. 9. ſect. 10. frankencenſe alſo. t Tertullian denied the former conſequence, becauſe Phiſicke is profitable, whereas a Garland was vnneceſſarie.tTertul. quo ſupra. Our writers the latter, becauſe a Temple hath neceſſarie vſe, whereas frankencenſe is good for nothing, which yet is better (or not ſo bad) as the Croſſe and Surplice are. Let me, to the contrary, vſe a weapon of our owne men. All rites abuſed popiſhly muſt be aboliſhed,uBucer. in cenſur. quo ſupra. Niſi exiſtant ex ijs rebus, verbis, & ſignis, quae dominus nobis commendauit. The ſigne of the Croſſe hath bin abuſed popiſhly, and is no ordinance of the Lorde; therefore he muſt downe, when Temples ſometimes maywConcil. Aphrican. com. 25. ſtand: as in the dayes of Conſtantinus, though at other times they muſt bee rayſed (neceſſary circumſtances ſo requiring) as in the raigne of Theodoſius, ſome of them were, and in the time of the Councell Epaunenſe of which before.