Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 2 · Section 34 [i.e. 33]
#Sect. 34. The 4. ſigne alleadged for the defence of the Croſſe, is the impoſition of hands: and why ſhould not the ſigne of the Croſſe be as lawfull as it.
THe fourth ſigne added by man which our Oppoſites doe alleadge, is the Impoſition of handes. why ſhould not the ſigne of the Croſſe be as lawfull as it (ſay they). Firſt, as our writers anſwer the Papiſtes impoſition of handes, in the Apoſtles times was a ſigne, but not a ſacrament, ſo we anſwer our adverſe brethren. It was a ſigne meerly indicant by inſtitution from God in the old Teſtament; by the cuſtome of Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the new: whereas the Croſſe is a ſigne Symbolicall and Sacramentall with a worde annext vntounto it iuſt like the water. Secondly, our writers defend this impoſition of handes was euer [ritus liber] whereas we are bound now to the Croſſe although it want that enſample in the word which this ſigne hath. Thirdly, whereas the Catechized had the handes laide on them before they were baptized, and thereby were receiued into the Church, though ſome differences may be alleadged betweene the ſigne of the croſſe and it, yet we holde it ſuperſtitious like the Croſſe which was made in it, and with whom it aroſe, for the higheſt mentioner of it isaConcil: Carthag. ſenten. 37. Vincentius Tibaritanus, co-equall with Cyprian, for that counterfeit Dioniſius bDioniſ. Areopag. in Eccleſiaſt. Hierarch.Areopagita who cannot be more auncient. Fourthlie, impoſition of handes following Baptiſme, is cancelled by the reformed Churches for the popiſh abuſe thereof: no where is it vſed but in England and in Boheme, where ſome thinke it to becHarmon. confeſſe. in obſeruat. in ſect 13. ad Bohemic. tollerable becauſe it hath ſome profit there, and breedeth no offence. neither of which can be ſaide here of this ſigne of the Croſſe. The fift ſigne added by man is the [Oſculum pacis] which was vſed in the primitiue Church. Which ſeeing it was lawfully added to the Sacrament of the Supper, why may not the Croſſe (a like ſigne vntounto it) be adiected vntounto Baptiſm? Firſt, this wentdIuſti. Martyr apolog. 2. ad finem Tertul. in lib. de oration. before the very ſolemnitie of the ſupper,eChryſoſt. Homil. de prodit. Iudae. to prepare men to a worthie receiuing in louelove and charitie. It had no ſtate in the ſacrament it ſelfe, as the Croſſe hath now in Baptiſme. Secondly, this was a meere naturall ſigne of peace, and not ſymbolicall or ſacramentall. all the people of the earth vſe to imbrace, and to ſtrike handes, and to kiſſe, when they will ſhew forth indicant ſignes of peace and reconciliation. Two men that were enemies ioyne handes together in the Church before they goe to the communion table in token of recōciliation. will you make a ſacramentall ſigne of this? or will you ſay it is an addition to the ſacrament or affirme the ſigne of the Croſſe is no worſe, nor no more an addition then it? but now the kiſſe of the primitiue Church was ſuch: men ioyned hands in it: men embraced one another in it; asfChryſoſt. ad popul. Antiochē. homil. 51. Chryſoſtome telleth vsus: and theſe verſes of Paulinus: Tunc ambo nexi ad invicem dextras damus. In oſculo pacis ſacrae, &c. Quiſquiſne tibi (gHieron. ad Theophil. Alexand. ſaith Hierome) invitus communicat? quiſquamne extenſa manu vertit faciem & inter ſacras apulas Iudae oſculum porrigit? So is this kiſſe a ſigne of LoueLove, as the turning away of the face is a ſigne of hatred, that is, a naturall indicant ſigne, & not ſymbolicall or ſacramentall like the Croſſe. Thirdly, what is now become of this kiſſe? It is caſt forth of the Church. Wherefore? becauſe it was abuſed. for it begate in poperie the kiſſing of a table, which had the Image of Chriſt, or of ſome ſaint in it (called the Paxe.) and wherefore was it turnde at firſt into the kiſſing of this Paxe? why, for the ſame reaſon, that kiſſinghClemens in conſtie. li. 8. ca 11. of men and women together was forbidden before,lGabr. Biel. in can. miſſae. lect. 8 1 Durant. de rit. lib. 2. ca. 54. ſect. 7. ne recti ſpecie aliquid libidinis diabolico afflatu irrepat. Alas then for vsus, who cannot euen by this learne to aboliſh the ſigne of the Croſſe, leſſe auncient, leſſe profitable, more abuſed: it ſelfe hauing begotten a worſe Idolatrie? no, though it be needfull to aboliſh it, not onelyonly to prevent ne quid irrepat, but alſo to remedie that which is crept in alreadie. Nowe, beſides this kiſſe before the Communion, there was one giuen to the partie baptized before his baptiſme, about which wee need bee no more carefull then about the exſufflation which went immediatly before it: or the ſalt that followed after it: and as it quicklynDurant de rit. li. 1. ca. 19. ſect. 24 vaniſhed away, ſo I would it had taken the Croſſe away with it; it could not hauehave had better companie. Thus farre of the ſinne of the Croſſes office which it doeth beare in Baptiſme, where we vſe it for a ſymbolicall and a ſacramentall ſigne. There followe now the offices which he performeth to Baptiſme, which are in number 4.