Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 2 · Section 33 [i.e. 32]
#Sect. 33. The third obiection of the Oppoſites: There be diuers ſignes added in the ſcripture by man lawfully as the knife of ſtone, &c.
THirdly, it is obiected, That there be diuerſe ſignes founde in the ſcripture added by man lawfully. Firſt (ſay our Oppoſites) what ſay yee to the knife of ſtone added by Ioſua or the Iewes to the Sacrament of Circumciſion with a ſymbolicall ſignification, foraIuſtinus Martyr in Tryphon. Auguſt. de temp. ſerm. 141. Nicho. Lyran. in Ioſuah 5. he ſignified Chriſt our rocke and corner ſtone. Firſt, there is no compariſon betweene this knife and the croſſe, becauſe the croſſe is a ſigne of ſtate by it ſelfe, whereas the knife was an inſtrument of the ſigne of Circumciſion, and ſo by conſequent no more an addition then the ſiluer pipe which lay men vſed in the ſacramēt of the Supper, as the ſtatute of the Carthuſians ſheweth, which was, they ſhould poſſeſſe nothing but a ſiluer cuppe and a pipe of ſiluerbBeat. Rhenan. in Tertul. de coron. milit. qua laici dominicum abſorbeant ſanguinem. Secondly, There was neuer added a knife of ſtone to the ſacrament of Circumciſion but it was alwayes a knife of iron as Iuſtinus Martyr cIuſtinus Martyr. vt ſupra.witneſſeth. But the text calleth them kniues of ſtone. The Caldee paraphraſt interpreteth giadiolos acutos, as well he might. For what is heere a knife foreign the Septuagint, or ex petra acutus as the ordinarie gloſſe. At a word, what is the knife of ſtone, but a knife of thedArrias Monta. in hunc locſi. whet-ſtone: that whet-ſtone which may not be ſold by theeDigeſt. lib. 39. tit. 4. ca. 11. ciuill lawe to an enemie vnderunder payne of death, it is ſo fitt to ſharpen. But what ſhall we ſay to the Fathers (then) who make this knife of ſtone a figure of Chriſt? who ſay more ouer that Circumcizion was on the 8. day to figure out Chriſtes reſurrection. Why, as it isfAndre. Maſius in hunc loc. pa. 83. pertinacie in them who defende this ſtony knife though they doe it becauſe they are loth to looſe that figure of Chriſt which the Fathers hauehave placed in it, ſo now it will be partinacie for thee to defende the ſigne of the Croſſe in Baptiſme for that ſignifications ſake wherewith the Fathers dignifie it. Alas, thou muſt conſider how playfull they were in their ſignifications. and thou mayeſt eaſilie ſee from hence what litle hurt it is to looſe the fonde figures they hauehave deuiſed.
The ſecond ſigne added by man (which our Oppoſites do alleadge) is the Altar of Iordan bancke. The altar of the two Tribes and an halfe was lawfully added to the Altar of the Temple (ſay they) therefore the Church may lawfully adde the ſigne of the Croſſe to the water of Baptiſme. Firſt let me reaſon a litle better: The Altar like to that of Damaſcus, was added vnlawfully in the Temple: and the Altar of the high places was an vnlawfull addition likewiſe: therfore the addition of the ſigne of the Croſſe to the ſigne of the water, is vnlawfull altogether. Secondly, who lamenteth not to ſee how groſſe our Oppoſites are growne? For what coherence in this argument, what coincidence in theſe two ſignes? For neither was the Altar of the two Tribes in ſtate religious as the Croſſe is, nor in vſe. it was ciuill in the iudgement of the moſtgD. Babing. in the 2. cō ment. learned of our Oppoſites. Or if it were to an holy vſe, yet not to the ſame for which the Altar of the temple ſerued. The Tribes had ſinned (ſay ourhLudouic. Lauater. in Ioſu. 22: homil. 61. writers) if out of the Temple they had determined an Altar to the ſame vſe, for which the Lord had ſet vp one in the Temple already. And ſith it was out of the temple, it was not in ſtate religious like the Croſſe. What if it were? It had bene but like the Altar which Salomon reared, when Moſes Altar could not beare all the ſacrifices that were brought. From this Altar it is, that Bellarmine argueth a great deale more ſtrongly, then our Oppoſites from the other of Iordan banke. The addition of an new Altar added by Salomon, was lawfull (ſaith he) therefore additions of men are lawfull to the worſhipps of God. How doe we anſwer him? Firſt, this was done vponupon ſpeciall warrant, as Salomon was a Prophet who had extraordinarie inſpiration (ſay ſomelMatt. Sutcliue cont. Bellar. de ſummo Pō tific. lib. 4. cap. 6. of our writers) and from theſe it will followe againſt Bellarmine and our Oppoſites, that there is no warrant ordinarie in the worde to adde in any religious vſe, either Altar, Croſſe, or any ſigne elſe. Secondly, this Altar was added out of the equitie, euen of Moſes law it ſelfe (ſaymFranc. Iunius cōtrouerſ. 3. lib. 4. cap. 17. nota 4. others) neither was it any addition at all, ſeeing no newe ſigne of a diuerſe kinde. Theſe put this anſwere into our mouthes: The Altar of Iordan was no ſuch addition, in reſpect of the kinde, as is the addition of the Croſſe which is a new ſigne, of a diuerſe ſpecies from the water, to which he is added. Another Altar is ſet by the old, to this anſweres not a Croſſe, 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 hauehave very bad happe, or elſe they cannot ſpeake one ſyllable ſaue out of the popiſh, or Lutheran Grammar. They thinke it much when they are able to ſaye, that our Croſſe ſerueth only for a memoriall (euen as this Altar did) but a papiſt frō this place, ſpeaketh as honeſtly, as they for their liues. The ſigne of the Croſſe (ſaithnAnd. Maefius in Ioſ. 22.28. he) is like this Altar, which the Church propoſeth to vsus, not that wee ſhould adore it, but that we ſhould remember the Altar, whereon our Prieſt (according to Melchizodeches order) offered him ſelfe, as a ſacrifice for vsus. And they thinke they hauehave excuſeth their Croſſe ſufficiently from being popiſh, when they hauehave ſaid, we vſe him not to the ſame ende, but in a diuer ſe manner. But there is aoDauid Chytre in hunc locſi. 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 anſwere, they ſet him not vp for ſacrifice, but to another ende: ſo when the Iconomachi challenge vsus about our Images, we may well excuſe out ſelues in the like manner: Wee doe not ſett them vp to adore them, as papiſtes doe, but we vſe them for monuments only.
The third ſigne added by man, which our Oppoſites doe alleadge, is the ſigne of the Croſſe added to the Sacrament of the Paſſeouer, for as much as it appeareth bypIuſtinus Martyr in Tryphon. Iuſtinus Martyr, the Paſchall Lambe was roſted in the forme of a Croſſe. One of my brethren hearing of this, ſaid, that he had often heard of a tale of a roſted horſe, but neuer of a roſted Croſſe before. This reply will ſerue the turne. For either the Paſchall Lambe was not dreſſed in forme of a Croſſe, or if it were, it was no typus deſtinatus: or if it were, it was inſtituted from the beginning.