Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 2 · Section 21 [i.e. 20]
#Sect. 21. The Oppoſites ſaying the Croſſe is Sacramentale, is foure wayes faulty.
THe ſecond is that it is a Sacramentale, whoſe addition is found faulty of foure ſinnes againſt the ſecond Precept. The firſt conſiſteth in a [Sacramentall power] from the ruſte, whereof, is our Croſſe ſcoured? What meaneth this bleating then in our eares?aRic. Hook li. 5. ca. 65. fol. 160. The Croſſe is an holy ſigne. A moſt effectuall teacher, yea, there cannot be a more forcible meane to auoyde that which may deſeruedly procure ſhame. Howbeit drawe we neare, and wee ſhall heare more. Maiſter Hooker being aſhamed to apply the text of Ezech. 9.4. Apoc. 7.3. to the ſigne of the Croſſe in that groſſe manner as Ieſuites doe, fetcheth a windlaſſe which cunningly bringeth them at the laſt to the very ſame ſtanding. They meane (forſooth) no viſible marke, but ſecuritie from that ſhame which vſeth to ſhewe her ſelfe in the face: whereof ſhall I ſay, (ſaith hee) the ſigne of the Croſſe is in ſome ſort a meane? ſith he thinketh it, he may very well ſay it, to make knowne to the world an Amalekites beaſt is kept aliue which ſhould hauehave died. For ſhall I ſay, the ſigne of the Croſſe is in ſome ſorte effectiue of grace, if in ſome ſort it bee a meane to ſecure from confuſion euerlaſting? And how doe not theſe places imply a marke viſible, if they imploy the Croſſe for a meane of the ſafety that they promiſe? Howbeit draw we neare, and we ſhall heare yet more. He is not aſhamed to cite a ſentence of Cyprian, who ſaith, the Croſſe doth puriſie the forehead. Yea keepe it pure from the Garland of Sathan, in the ſame ſort that the Sacrament of the Supper keepeth pure the mouth from the ſcraps of Idols. Now how commeth it to paſſe, that M. Hookers forcible meane to keepe foreheads from ſhame, hath ſo fouly deceiued his Maiſter? leauing his owne forehead ſo voyd of ſhame, as to iuſtifie this purifying of foreheades by the Croſſe, and this keeping pure? But hee hath made ſome recompence (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 ranke, to ſtande in the margine. No this was policie, becauſe he ſheweth his hornes too openly, and bleateth the Amalekitiſh Idiom too broad. If it had bene ſhame he would not hauehave brought him into the field: he being burnt in the eare as a Rogue of Montanus by the bench of all ourbWhitak. contro. 1. q. 6. cap. 12 fol. 443. Chemnit. exam. p. 30 de tradit. fol. 94. writers. One of whom thus: Tertullianus de reſurrectione carnis, &c. Tertullian in his booke of the reſurrection reciteth Vnction, ſigning with the Croſſe, and the impoſing of hands, for the ceremonies of Baptiſme. Neither doth he onelyonly aſcribe vntounto them decencie and ſignification, but efficacy alſo. For he ſaith, the fleſh is annointed, that the ſoule may bee ſanctified. The fleſh is ſigned that the ſoule may bee fenced; the fleſh is ſhadowed with impoſition of hands, that the ſoule 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 Maiſter Hooker doth not meane he ſaueth frō ſhame, purifieth the forehead, & fenceth the ſoule ex opere operato, as doth the Papiſt: but ex opere operamis onelyonly, as he ſturreth vp meditation, and conſideration, or (to ſpeake in his owne language) imagination, which happely are a ſleepe without it. He differreth (in deed) that the papiſt giueth vntounto the Croſſe, a power ex opere operato againſt the Devill which he giueth not, as for the grace which ſanctifieth, ſome papiſtes giuegive no more power to the Croſſe then doeth Maiſter Hooker for ought I ſee, for he maketh it powerfull (as a meane) which God bleſſeth to the inward ſtutring vp of the minde: and what doethcS…ph. Garden. in epiſt. ad Ridley. Steuen Gardener him ſelf giuegive more to the Croſſe or to holy water, or to any thing in their imagined power of ſanctifying? Doth not adVazq de adorat. li. 3. diſput. 2. cap. 5. Ieſuit directly denie, that a Croſſe imprinteth any holines ſauing by prayer? Others (it may be) giuegive a power ex opere operato in this behalfe, but I leaue them in the middeſt, the point I driue at being apparant a power Sacramentall, to ſtirre vp the ſoule by ſtriking the ſenſes, is aſcribed to the Croſſe, and that verie neare in a popiſh maner againſt the doctrine of ourfChemnit. exam p. 2. cap. de ritib. pag. 36 37. 38. Writers who diſclaime it.