Truth and Peace, Appendix
An APPENDIX concerning the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm.
BEcauſe there is bound up with the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm, a Treatiſe called, The Caſe of the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, We ſhall take ſo much notice of it as to ask, (in Tertullian's words, Ʋnde veniſti?) Whence comeſt thou? And to this the Author ſeems to give anſwer, Ab Antiquitate, from Antiquity, Tradition, &c. And quotes for it Tertullian, Origen, Baſil and Cyprian, and gives as good ground from Antiquity and Tradition for it, as our Doctor has done for Infant-Baptiſm. And he has a clearer Text for it too (if Jerome ſay true) than any which has been yet alledged for Infant-Baptiſm, viz. Ezek. 9. 4. Set a Mark upon the Foreheads of the Men that ſigh. He tells us that by ſeveral of the Hebrew Verſions, this mark is ſuppoſed to be by the Hebrew foreign Tau, which Jerome ſays, was in the Samaritan Character like our T, and ſo made the Figure of the Croſs.
It ſeems theſe two Caſes, Infant-Baptiſm, and the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, ſtands much upon the ſame bottom, and will ſtand and fall together. Howbeit we ſhall not do much more about this caſe, than to be the Remembrancer of this Generation with what Teſtimony has formerly been given againſt this piece of Superſtition, by learned Proteſtants themſelves, even ſuch as were our Oppoſites in the other caſe, who to this Plea of the Church of England; that they receive not the ſign of the Croſs as from the Papiſts, but from the Fathers of the Primitive Church, gives them this Anſwer.
1. The Fathers can be no Vizard for a Rite whereof the Pagans, Jews, or Hereticks were the Fathers and firſt begetters. It was the Fault of one Alexander, that he ſang the Pſalms of Valentinus; Dr. Fulk againſt Saund. c. 13.It is ours, that we uſe his Croſs. I call it his, becauſe he was the firſt that uſed this Sign, the very firſt that made account of it, as appears by Irenaeus, lib. 1. c. 1. And he did wreſt the Scriptures to the Croſſes Commendation.—He termed him Crux to ſhew a purging Power in him, becauſe he held the Croſs a Purger of Man's Sin.—And that he was drawn into this Opinion by the ſame means that Papiſts are drawn into it, by a ſuppoſed Dedication of it in the Blood of Chriſt [not conſidering that by this conceit Men may adore every Thorn-Buſh, becauſe the Holy Head of Jeſus was embrued with Blood by that Crown of Thorns wherewith he was crowned.] And Valentinus does confeſs his A…on was without a Figure, until Chriſt by his Death upon the Croſs gave him one, and till now we never read of any that uſed the Figure of the Croſs before him, or made any account of it. And therefore he it is (for ought we know) even Valentinus, that firſt brought it into Requeſt and Reckoning. And who then will ſuffer us to ſay we borrow it from the Fathers, and not from him?—See we not then, that to ſay we follow the Fathers in the Croſs, (Valentinus the Heretick being the firſt Deviſer of it) we are forced to fly like Eutropius to the very ſame Sanctuary, which we have denied and ſhut up to others.
The Fathers can be no Vizard for a Ceremony which has been abuſed ſince, or what though from the Fathers we take this ſign? This helpeth not till the Fathers uſe be juſtified, which will never be.—He that readeth the Fathers Writings will meet indeed with ſuch a Chaos, as will make him afraid, (I ſay not to fall into it) but even to behold it. Who can brook the Efficacy which Tertullian gave it? The Fleſh is ſigned, that the Soul may be defended. The Neceſſity which Cyprian gave it in Baptiſm, Ʋngi neceſſe baptizatum—baptizati ſigno Dominico conſumantur. The Fathers call this ſign Spirituale Signaculum, (to wit) becauſe it bringeth the Spirit, for which one place may ſerve our turn, Sequitur ſpirituale Signaculum, quia poſt fontem ſupereſt ut perfectio fiat, quando ad invocationem Sacerdos, Spiritus fanctus infunditur. And in the opinion of the Fathers the Water of Baptiſm is nothing worth without the Croſs. In the opinion of the Fathers, the Croſs is the Terror of the Devil, and an impregnable Wall againſt him, ſo that they uſed the Croſs themſelves when in any danger. In the opinion of the Fathers the Croſs is Inſigne Regni, et clavis Paradiſi. Laſt of all in the opinion of the Fathers, the Croſs is ſo neceſſary, as that it is to be made, coming and going, ſitting and ſtanding, even ad omnem inceſſum, at every ſtop; and ad omnem actum, in every Action that we do.
And to ſhew the Superſtition of the Croſs from Tertullian, take a View of it, as ſet down by the Author of the caſe of the Croſs—Ʋpon every motion (ſaith he) at their going out, and coming in, when they put on their Garments or Shoes, at the Bath, or at Meals, when they lighted up their Candles, or went to Bed, whatever almoſt they did in any part of their Converſation, ſtill they would even wear out their Foreheads with the Sign of the Croſs. And is not this a ſad Story? yet our Author brings this in Favour of it.
Mr. Hooker is brought in as drawing Mr. Goulart as it were by the Hair of the Head, to clear the Fathers from the Superſtition of the Croſs, which he doth not, ſave in compariſon of the Popiſh Merit and Enchantment which afterward crept in. As for the operative Power which they placed in the Oily Croſs, he flatly condemneth them.
And whereas it is ſaid that the Croſs (among Proteſtants) coming after the Water (in Baptiſm) is an Acknowledgment of its Subjection to it. My Author anſwers, This ill beſeemeth our Mouths, who cannot endure the Papiſt when he makes the ſame excuſe. The Croſs which cometh after the Conſecration in the Lords Supper belongeth not to it. We oppoſe againſt him: The Conſecration doth reach to the whole Adminiſtration, whatſoever Sign is adminiſtred it cannot but (at leaſt) in ſhew pertain to it. Therefore it is a part of the Sacrament, ſaith the Canon. So all the while the Croſs is within the Celebration of Baptiſm, it is morally a part thereof: for Example, the Feaſt came after the worſhipping of the Calf; yet becauſe it pertained to the Solemnity, the Apoſtle not only counteth it a part of the Idols Service but ſuch a principal part as includeth all the reſt that went before, 1 Cor. 10.
If thou haſt made a Separation, (between the Croſs and the Water) thou haſt made a fair hand. This very Separation maketh the Croſs to be a ſign of a divers ſpecies, and ſo by conſequent to be an Addition, which is unlawful: And the matter of this Separation (boaſted of) maketh the after-place of the Croſs yet worſe—For what though the Croſs and the Water be divers in matter? So are the Bread and the Wine in the Supper, [yet] they make one Refection in Chriſt, and ſo grow to be formally one: and ſo may theſe grow to be one likewiſe, becauſe they make one inveſting into the Church. And doth not the Croſs touch the Water as near as the Wine doth touch the Bread? The Poſtation of the Wine doth not prejudice it, therefore the poſtponing of the Croſs doth not prejudice it.—As long as the Croſs and the Water [our Croſs and the Popiſh] are ſeen in the ſame Solemnity of Baptiſm, the Separation is inſufficient.—Is not Baptiſm the Seal of the Heavenly King? and can any new print be added to the Seal of a King without Treaſon? Do we not cry out upon the Dove, let down of old upon the baptized for a Sign of Regeneration by the Spirit? (one of which I ſaw (ſaith my Author) at Wickham not aboliſhed ſome 25 Years paſt) ſure, a Sign in ſuch manner determined, with State in Baptiſm, we can eaſily prove to have been abhorred throughout all Ages, however in the particular of the Croſs, the Oyl and ſome other Signs, God permitted the ancient Fathers to fail in Heart to bring in (through their overſight againſt their own general▪ Doctrine) that Apoſtacy from the Faith which he foretold. [Thus much concerning the Croſs as grounded upon Antiquity, or as coming from the Fathers.]
2. Concerning that Text in Ezekiel 9. 4. Our Author ſaith that ſome of the Authors whom Jerom followed underſtood this Sign to be ſpiritual and not an outward Mark, which is alſo the Tenent of our Writers: [Dr. Fulk againſt Martin.] If our Oppoſites have found out ſince the Sign of the outward Croſs in this pla…e, I would they would tell us which way they came by it? [and after he has ſet down various opinions about altering the form of the Hebrew Characters, he tells us out of Baronius, that Ezra never changed the Hebrew Letters, that the old ancient Copies of the Hebrew Bibles were many of them remaining▪ in Ezra's time, and that they are all in one Character, to wit, the old and ancient Characters of the Hebrews.—And that the whole matter is of late brought clearly to light by Jo. Scaliger, who writes thus, The old Hebrew and Samaritan Letters be all one, and the Letter Tau in neither of them is like a Croſs, or the Greek or Roman T. Hierom what he writes of Ezras's altering the old Samaritan Tau, he taketh word by word out of Origen, in Romanos. Origen was deceived by a Jew, on whoſe bare Relation he grounded himſelf, which Relation was alſo falſe.—We muſt give the Fathers leave to play, according to their own Pleaſure, not only to fetch the ſign of the Croſs out of this Tau, but alſo out of the two Sticks which the Widow of Sarepta gathered, yea to fetch a Croſs and a T too out of the 300 Souldiers of Gideon. And (as the Author of the Caſe of the Croſs tells us) They of the Romiſh Church can diſcern the Croſs in the Figure of a Mans Face, by the placing the Noſe betwixt the two Eyes, and much more in the whole Body of Man with his Arms extended: They can diſcern it in the Sword in Paradiſe, and in the Croſs Stick that Noah's Dove brought back into the Ark. And indeed ſome of the Fathers (ſaith he) bent their Imaginations ſomething that way, and would fancy the Figure of the Croſs in Moſes ſtretching out his Arms while the Iſraelites were ſighting with Amaleck, and in the paſchal Lamb when the Spit went through it. Surely theſe things may ſufficiently inform us, that let Men be never ſo great, or never ſo much reverenced as Fathers, &c. Yet God is no Reſpecter of Perſons, but if they will follow their own fancies, and be adding to his Inſtitutions, he will even ſmite them with Stupidity, that the Childiſhneſs of the Fathers may appear to very Children; and that all may fear God, and keep his Commandments, without adding to them, or taking from them, according to Deut. 12. 32. Deut. 4. 2.
3. There is a great pretence that Conſtantine the great had Direction probably from Heaven to make this ſign of the Croſs in his Banner; becauſe he dreamed he ſaw ſuch a ſign in the Firmament with foreign, in hoc vince, [overcome in this] written in it. To this it is anſwered.
It was not the Sign of the Croſs that appeared, but a ſight ſomewhat like it, to wit, a mark of Chriſt's Name Xo P. after this manner Xo, or as Lypſius upon the view of ancient Copies draws it after another manner more different from the ſign of the Croſs, than the former. The former of theſe cometh neareſt to the Deſcription of Euſebius, therefore the latter may be ſome Imitation of it. But be this Dream or Viſion what it will, we find not that Conſtantine had any Authority to turn it into a Religious Ritual, much leſs to make it conſecratory to many Rites in Worſhip, and particularly in Baptiſm. Theſe are after-Inventions: for whatſoever Honour hath accrued to the Croſs (ſaith our Author) by this Dream or Viſion, it came either from the Alchymie of the Biſhops in thoſe days who drew a Croſs out of the ſight which Conſtantine ſaw, or from the Sophiſtry of Papiſts ſince.
The Truth is the Viſion which St. Steven ſaw at his Martyrdom, Acts 7. and that which St. Paul had at his Converſion, Acts 9. are not only delivered to us by Divine Teſtimony, but were nothing inferiour to that of Conſtantine, which whether it were a Dream or a Viſion, is not certain, the Story giving it both ways; yet who ſo abſurd to turn the Viſions of St. Stephen and St. Paul into Rituals, or to aſſix them to Chriſt's Ordinances? When Men do aſſume this Liberty without Divine Warrant, many Evils do follow upon ſuch doings. How much innocent Blood has been ſhed about this ſign of the Croſs, is not eaſily to be eſtimated? and indeed for the ſake of this and other ſuch Inventions, Chriſtians have hated one another with cruel Hatred, as late Years have ſhewed. Men more account of thoſe Tradions, than of the Word of God by far. We have ſeen it with our Eyes. A Man might be a common Drunkard, and yet permitted to preach in the Pulpit. But if he would not uſe the ſign of the Croſs, and the Surplice, away with him. This kind of Zeal ſhews that it's from beneath, it is not of God.
And ſo long as theſe things remain, and are forced on by Authority, there will be continual Strife, Contention, and Devouring amongſt Chriſtians: as it was ſo from the Beginning of them, ſo it will be to the end of them: becauſe an evil Plant will bring forth according to its Nature. We have more ſacred Inſtitutions, then we can well obſerve. Why do we ſeek to burthen our ſelves or others, in matters of Religion, with the Commandments and Doctrines of Men? all which are to periſh; and God in Mercy haſten the time, that God's People may have but one Heart, and one Way.
Amen.