Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 1 · Section 37
IT will be obiected that the Croſſe hath a ſtate ciuill amongſt vsus too, in coynes, banners, and the like. Where, ſeeing we like him well enough, why ſhould he be miſliked in Baptiſme? Firſt, we denie him to be abſolutely lawfull, euen in ſuch ciuill vſe, when once he commeth to beaWalafrid. Strab. in 1. cor. 10. in gloſſa. ſub veneratione Idoli, vnderunder the worſhip of the Idoll, and to giuegive the leaſt occaſion to thinke the better of popery, or to caſt ſome ſhewe or ſome ſhadow of it, then he1Ioſu. 23.13. Mat. 5.19. 1. Theſ. 5.22. groweth to be vnlawfull. For conſider the origen and beginning of this [ſtate] ciuill, in coynes and banners. Euen in warrebEuſeb li. 9 cap. 9. Sozomen. lib. 1. cap. 3. Conſtantine holdeth the adored [labarum] of the old Romans to be vnlawfull: and in coynes, the old Images of Mercurie and Hercules: and therefore ſetteth vp in both the Croſſe which then the Idolaters moſt of all hated, and which made moſt profeſſion againſt them. The Croſſe (then) being become an olde adored I doll of Rome, muſt he not be done away (caeteris paribus) euen out of coynes and banners themſelues vponupon like reaſon, and ſome other enſigne be brought in vſe, which may profeſſe againſt the Papiſts? So ſhall we follow the zeale of Conſtantine, as alſo of others whoſe coynes and banners knewe no marke, but ſuch as made diſtinction manifeſt betweene them and Idolaters. We ſee this in the Machebees, who bore in their flagge,cFranciſe. Iunius. in 1. macca. … 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 vntounto thee Iehouah? Whence they were termed Macbaei, and after Macabaei. We ſee it indCarion. Chron. in. Theodoſ. Theodoſius, who bore in his enſigne againſt Eugenius, this name of XRS Chriſt. we ſee it in the religious of France, whoſe ſtandart ſpake thus,eComenta. de ſtat. religion. in Gallia. pro Chriſto & Patria, for Chriſt and the Countrey. That of Alphonſus was better then a marke confounding with the aliens whoſe ſymbole was a Pellican, ſhedding her heart bloud for her yonge, with this impreſe, pro lege & grege, for the law and the flock. Let noue thinke this to bee preciſenes more then needes. An Idolls name muſt not be mentioned in commonfTertul. in lib de Idololat. talke, ne illius maieſtatem confirmemus. No booke muſt be read in a common ſchole, wherin Idols be mentioned, that are inſtantlygIdem li. de ſpectacul. worſhipped, ne affirmentur dum traduntur, leaſt they be avouched whileſt they be taught. No ſpectacle of theirs muſt a Chriſtian beholde in a common Theater; no habit ofhIdem. li. de coron. milit.. Aeſculapius Prieſtes muſt be vſed, no not when a cocke is dreſſed for private vſe. No picture of the Sunne muſt be ſeene in a Chriſtian mans ſhieldlHoſpin. de re templar. tractat. de imag., quando deputatur ad Perſas, the adorers of the ſunne. No Idolothite muſt be ſuffered in common or in private vſe, in which themAuguſt. epiſt. 154. honour of the Idoll is not defaced. To goe no further then ſcripture it ſelfe. Is not the2Deut. 7.26. gould of the Image abhominable, euen in private vſe, when the Idoll is countenanced by it? The3Deut. 27.15. Image accurſſed in a private place, when kept with honour? The Idolls Iewll42. Mac. 12.40. hated of God, whē ſecretly put vnderneath the garment? The Idolls meat a partaking with Devills, euen at a common51. Cor. 10.28. table when it is knowne? Pray lett me appeale euen to our owne practize: Did we not deale with many Croſſes materiall at firſt, euen out of the Church, as Diagoras dealt with Hercules when he put him to his thirtenth laboure which was to boyle his lentils? And the common vſe of croſſing, eſpecially our bedds and other dead things, we vſe to condemne in thenTertul. li. ad vxor. Beat. Rhenan. in lib. de coron. milit. Fathers themſelues: which, why condemne wee? it being auncient, it being ciuill, all while we preſſe the baptiſme, croſſe, which being no auncienter and not ſo ciuill muſt needes be more vnlawfull? who can ſpitt at the Temple frankenſence (ſaithoTertul. li. de Idololat 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 owne houſe hath wares for his ſeruice? But with more reaſon may I inferre from allowance religious to that which is ciuill, not of wares that may bee Idolatrous, and ſuperſtitious, after they are ſolde, but of Croſſes that are already, how can we condemne Croſſes at home, that exact croſſing in the church? or with what face can we condemne papiſtes for Croſſing, who iuſtifie them with our owne example? for we may reaſon as Auguſtine doth, ſpeaking againſt the riot and exceſſiue vſage in his time, vponupon the holy-dayes of Martirs,pAuguſt. epiſt. 64. quis audet vetare priuatim, quod cum frequentatur in ſanctis locis, honor martyrū nominatur? who dareth forbid home croſſinge as execrable, which being vſed in the church, is helde to be honorable before the Lorde?