Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 2 · Section 4
#Sect. 4. The Oppoſites ſaying our Croſſe is no Image, becauſe they intend no expreſsion, are confuted.
NO want (then) of matter in the aereall ſigne of the Croſſe, but it may be an Image well. Now to the want of forme obiected. Our Croſſe (ſay our Oppoſites) is no Image, becauſe our Church doth not intend any [expreſsion] which muſt be warily vnderſtood. If this be the meaning: our Church meaneth not in making the Croſſe, to drawe it from the Croſſe of Chriſt, though by theaSam. Harſnet. in declarat. of Weſton. impoſtur. cap. 20. doctrine of our Oppoſites, the Croſſe is naturally ſuch an expreſſion, yet we ſtand rather vponupon this, that ſuch expreſſion is not needfull. The Image which the Archbiſhop of Mentz ſet vp in his Church, was an Image of the bleſſedbThom. Moreſcin. in verb. repreſenta. Virgin, though the figure was drawne and expreſt from the face of a certaine harlot which he kept, and not from her owne countenance. If this bee the meaning, [our Church intendeth not in making the Croſſe to make an Image] then we reply two wayes. Firſt, our Church intendeth in croſſing, that which is proper to that Image, which this Commaundement doth forbid. For we vſe it to teach by reſemblance outward; and to admoniſh by ſtriking the ſenſes, which is proper to an Image largely taken, by the letter of the word. Thou heardeſt a voyce, thou ſaweſt no Image, As who ſhould ſay, cleaue to his voyce. What is added in the Church without his warrant, that eſteeme to be an Image which he deteſteth, and abhorreth. And this hauehave ſome of our Oppoſites taught vsus out of Abbacuck, who reprooueth the Idoll (as they conceiue) not onelyonly for teaching ill, but alſo for teaching at all, becauſe God alloweth no teacher but himſelfe,cD. Babing. in praecept. 2. pag. 95. D. Bilſ. nor meane of teaching, but his holy word and Sacrament. As for theſe Sacraments, they aredPet. Lombard. lih. 4. diſtinct. 1. Tho. Aquin. p. 3. q. 83. art. 1 Ioh. Iewd… Apolog. Angl. p. 37 Harmon. confeſſ. ti…. de Sacram. in confeſſ. Anglie. D. Bilſ. ag. Apolop. p. 4. p. 594 Images in the eyes of all the learned, and were vnlawfull by this Commaundement, like this teacher of ours (the Croſſe) had not God himſelfe ordained them. Secondly, we vſe the Croſſe to ſignifie and repreſent, which is an office proper to an Image euen by our owne cōfeſſion, who holde an Image & a ſigne to be equivalent, euen as (in deed) in largnes of ſence they are but one. Whereas Theodoſius andeD Fulk againſt Sand. de imagin. c. 7. p. 695 Valentinian remoued quodcunque ſignum Salvatoris, we vſe to alleadge it againſt the Croſſe, and all other vnlawfull Images. The Heathen ſaid of their Images,fAuguſt. in pſal. 113. Concion. 2 eius ſignum intueor quem adoro. And yet we condemne them amongeſt the Images heere forbidden. The brazen ſerpent was like the croſſe, a ſigne and a figure of Chriſt, yet wegIoh. Iewel Apol. 14. Diui. 3. D. Fulke vt ſupra. Ioh Rèyn. de Idolola. li. 1. ca. 2. ſect. 2. alleadge the breaking of him for the aboliſhing of popiſh Images out of the Church. But it may bee that our Oppoſites will denie, that they intende any ſuch teaching, any ſuch ſignifying, of Chriſtes death by any relation to the Croſſe on which he died. This if they doe, then what ſhould I ſay, but that it is a thing impoſſible (as it is in the auncient Apologue) to make a coate for the Moone. Mr Hooker and the reſt hitherto; the moderne Canon that is in force, many of our preſent Gouernours, doe not onelyonly allow that our Croſſe ſhould bee a ſignifier and a teacher, but alſo commende him for his teaching and for his ſignifying. If there be any that ſince and ſo ſudainly chaunge like the Moone, it is time they take home to them ſelues that accuſation of newfanglednes wherewith they hauehave ſo long defamed vsus. Was it euer heard before that the Croſſe was euer vſed without relation to Chriſtes croſſe, without ſignification of his death? Our Croſſe is the Fathers Croſſe (we ſay) but little ſigne. For which of the Fathers euer vſed it not to this ende? to wit, they call ithBaſil de ſpir. ſanct. ſalutiferae Crucis ſignaculum. lHieron. Epiſt. ad Laetam. 7 c 2.Patibuli ſalutaris picturam. mAuguſt. ſermo. de ſanct. 19.Victorioſae Crucis inſignitam memoriam. And that which is moſt common amongſt them,nTheodor. hiſt. lib. 4. cap. 22. Diuinae Crucis ſignum. AndoEuſeb, de vita Conſtant. lib. 2 ca. 4. & li. 3. cap. 2. ſalutaris Chriſti paſsionis nota ad inſignem. They thinke the Deuills runne away from it, becauſe they ſee in itpTheodor-hiſtor. lib. 3 cap. 3. Tripar. hiſtor. lib. 6. cap. 1. Trophaei dominici figuram, and ſo remember the overthrow giuen them on the Croſſe.qZozomen. lib. 1. ca. 8. Conſtantine, or the reſt of the Fathers, would they hauehave thought it an honour to the croſſe of Chriſt, to take the death of the Croſſe away that no malefactor might be honoured with the death which Chriſt once died; had they not vſed it as a ſigne and repreſentation of his death, and of the Croſſe whereon hee dyed? vnleſſe it be for this relation, how can theſerAugu. ſer. deverb. Domin. 18. Homil. in Iohan. 36. & in pſal. 36. conci. 2 ſpeaches ſtande? Alocis ſuppliciorum fecit tranſitum ad frontes imperatorum, qui tantum honorem dedit poenis ſuis. Quid ſervat fidelibus ſuis. Quid ſervat fideli ſuo, qui talem honorem dedit ſupplicio ſuo? But this teſtimonie putteth all out of doubt,sIuſtus Origelitan. in Cantie. ſignum Crucis praenotamus in fronte. Ex ſua enim Cruce Chriſtus crucis ſignum in frontibus omnes in ſe credentes, edocuit. Secondly, what though our Church did not intende in the ſigne of the Croſſe that is proper to an Image, were this any thing, all while naturally it is an Image? all while the Papiſtes repute it ſo? and it is ſuch in common vſe? For wee hauehave this confeſſion from the mouth euen of an adverſarietRie. Hook li. 5. ca. 65. him ſelfe, that things muſt bee iudged as they runne in common vſe, and not as they are done in the ſpecial conſtruction of ſome mens wittes and vnderſtandings. Now in proper vſe that the ſigne of the Croſſe is a ſigne of Chriſtes Croſſe and of his death, this doeth witnes▪ before hee died it was eueruGuilihel. Alan. de ſacram. li. 1. art. 2. execrable, ſince his death from the time that it hath been vſed, it hath been euer honorable. As for the Papiſt, his ſchole doctrine runneth thus? The materiall Croſſe is potiſsima imago Crucis: the aereall veluti ſucceſsiua wSuar. tom. 1. in Tho.Imago Crucis. And in his contention againſt vsus, hee obiecteth that the Croſſes of our Banners them ſelues, arexBellar. de imag. c. 12. Nichol. Saund. de imag ca. 7. Images, although they are only in Civill vſe and not in vſe religious. As for the common vſe of the people, muſt they bee enthrald nowe at laſt to a private intention of the Miniſter, which all our writers hauehave ſo longe agoe diſclaimed in other things foryIewell art. aga. Hard. 1. diuiſ. 12 A dungeon of vntertaintie? No, the verie vſe of the Croſſe in Baptiſme, giueth warrant ſufficient to thinke an intendement to ſignifie Chriſt Ieſus crucified, and the profeſſion of him. For example.
The veryaVazq. de adorat. li. 3 diſput. 2. cap. 6. painting, yea ſetting of a ſpeare and a thorne in the Church neare a Croſſe, is ſufficient to make them repreſentators; which other ſpeares and thornes are not, which ſtand or grow without the Church. So, though there be nothing to enforce an intendment in ciuill Croſſes, yet the very making of a Croſſe in a Sacrament, (the ſigne of the couenant) is ſufficient to make it a ſignifier. To dippe one into a riuer abroad, argueth no intention to baptize, but in the Church,aBellar. de ſactam. in gener. cap. 21. cognoſcitur ex ipſa actione, there is an intendment, So when a Carpenter layeth a croſſe beame in an houſe, or a Weauer a croſſe thread in a cloth, he argueth no intention in him to ſignifie the death of Chriſt; whereas a miniſter in baptiſme [ex ipſa actione ſignandi] bewrayeth ſufficiently in the common eſtimate of all the the world, that he intendeth ſo much.