Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, jeanes 19 – hammond 21
Jeanes.
Saint Augustins words at large are as followeth, Quod ſignum niſi adhibeatur, ſive frontibus credentium, ſive ipſi aquae qua regeneramur, ſive oleo quo Chriſmate unguntur, ſive ſacrific…o qu… aluntur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur. Saint Auguſtine here you ſee approves of the Ch…iſm, and of the croſſing of the Oyle therein, and ſets it check by joule with the water in Baptiſm and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; now your friends doe hope that you doe not concurre with him herein; and if you doe nor, why doe you urge us with the authority of his Teſtimony?
2. If you apply Saint Auguſtines words to our times, and aver, that they cannot be denyed to have truth in them, then your opinion is, that unleſſe the ſign of the Croſſe be uſed to the water in Baptiſm, and to the Elements in the Lords Supper, theſe Sacraments are not duly performed with ſuch ceremonies, as by cuſtome of the Church, the rule of decency, belong unto them; and then what Apology can you make for the Church of England, that never ſince the Reformation uſed any of …heſe Croſſings.
3. Suppoſe Baptiſm in Auguſtines time had been adminiſtred without Croſſing of either the forehead of the Baptiſed, or the water wherewith they were baptiſed, it had then indeed been performed not with ſuch ceremonies as by the Cuſtome of the then Church belonged unto it: and ſo Fulk, in his Confutation of the Rhemiſts, expoundeth Auguſtines ritè, page 693. but this concludes nothing againſt us; for we hold that ſuch Baptiſme hath been ritè, that is, duly, lawfully, and laudably adminiſtred, becauſe it would have been agreeable unto Chriſts inſtitution, which alone, and not the cuſtome of the Church, is the rule of its adminiſtration,
4. Theſe words of Auguſtine are at beſt, but propoſitio malè ſonans; for they carry a palpable appearance of evill, becauſe they plainly ſeem to aſſert the neceſſity of the Sign of the Croſſe unto Baptiſme and the Lords Supper. Bellarmine bringeth them to prove, that nothing can be conſecrated without the ſign of the Croſſe, de Sacra confirm. lib. 2. c. 13 as alſo to juſtifie their Croſſings, that they uſe in the Maſſe, de Miſſa, lib. 3. c. 13. And there's a Popiſh Ballad mentioned by the Abridgement, and tranſcribed in Parker, wherein I beleeve this is one of the places in Auguſtine, related unto, part. 1. p. 92.
Without the Croſſe Saint Auguſtine ſaith,
(Read him and you may ſee)
1. No man is ſtedfaſt in the Faith,
Nor Chriſtened well may be.
No Sacrifice, no holy Oyle,
No waſhing in the Font,
2. Nor any thing can thee aſſoyle,
If thou the Croſs do want.
Children by it have Chriſtendome,
The water's blest alſo:
3. The Holy Ghoſt appears to ſome,
And eifts of Grace beſtow,
When that this Croſs is made aright,
Of them that hallowed be:
4. Where it is not, there wanteth might,
For ought that I can ſee.
But the very Canons of the Convocation doe diſclaime all neceſſity of the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſme, The Church of England, ſince the aboliſhing of Popery, hath ever held and taught, and teacheth ſtil, that the ſign of the Croſs uſed in Baptiſme is no part of the ſubſtance of that Sacrament; for when the Miniſter, dipping the Infant in water, or laying water upon the face of it (as the manner alſo is) hath pronounced theſe words (I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt) the Infant is fully baptized; ſo as the ſign of the Croſſe being afterwards uſed, doth neither adde any thing to the virtue, or perfection of Baptiſm; nor being omitted, doth detract any thing from the effect and ſubſtance of it.
Dr. Hammond.
And, Crucis ſigno in fronte hodie tanquam in poſte ſignandus es, omneſque Chriſtiani ſignantur (de Catechiz. rud. c. 20. tom. 4. pag. 915.) thou muſt be ſigned now in the forehead with the ſign of the Croſſe, as the Iſraelites on their door poſts, and ſo muſt all Christians.
Jeanes.
Whereas you ſay above, that Auguſtines words cannot be denyed to have truth in them, you mean theſe laſt quoted, as well as the former; and if this bee ſo, then it will be an eaſie matter for you to clear up by argument this undeniable truth that is in them. God commanded the Iſraelites to ſtrike the lintel and the two ſide poſts of the door with the blood of the Paſſeover; therefore all Chriſtians are obliged to be ſigned in the forehead with the ſign of the Croſſe, ſounds with me as a very wild and looſe inference; and therefore I ſhall intreat you to confirm it, or elſe relinquiſh this place of Auguſtine, as containing nothing of an argument in it.
Bellarmine alledgeth this place of Auguſtine to prove that the blood of the Lamb ſprinkled upon the poſts of the doors was a figure of the ſign of the Croſs: Tom. 2. de Eccleſ: triumph: lib. 2. c. 29. And unto him Chamier thus anſwereth; Tom. 2. pag. 878, 879. Nego crucem ſignificatam in veteri Teſtamento; niſi per accidens: hoc eſt, quatenus Chriſtus ſignificatus eſt crucifigendus. Sed crucem directè ac per ſe ſignificatam ullis figuris, nego. Nec ignoro tamen produci poſſe in contrarium teſtimonia quaedam ex Patribus. Sed ego quicquid Patribus in buccam venit, non cenſeo amplect endum, ut verbum Dei. Poteſt, inquiebat Auguſtinus in Pſalmum trigeſimum ſextum, nihil aliquid videri, alteri aliud: ſed neque ego, quod dixero, praeſcribo alteri ad meliorem intellectum, nee ille mihi. Idem de reliquis dicendum. Itaque liceat in earum ſententias inquirere. Certe illud de ſanguine agni poſito ſuper utroque poſte, remotiſſimum eſt à Cruce. Hoc ſolum tenuiſſimum veſtigium; poſitio in poſte, nonnihil alludit ad poſitionem in fronte; quae in corpore ſupremum locum occupat, ſicut in oſtio poſtis. Sed ſanguis, quanto aptiùs ſanguinem Chriſti ſignificaret? ut apud Gregorium homilia vigeſima ſecunda in Evangelia. Quid ſit ſanguis agni, non ja…n audiendo, ſed bibendo didiciſtis. Qui ſanguis ſuper utrumque poſtem ponitur, quando non ſolum ore corporis; ſed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Gretſerus excipit; poſſe unum idemque plura ſignificare. Ita ſane, inquam; ſed primo variis rationibus. Itaque eadem ratione qua ſignificat ſanguinem, non poteſt ſignificare crucem; At unius loci unica eſt ratio. Quare fi hoc uno loco ſignificat ſanguinem Chriſti, non ſignificat crucem. Deinde unum idemque potest varia ſignificare, at non quaelibet: ſed ea tantum, ad quae habet analogiam. Quaenam eſt vero analogia ſanguinis agni ad crucem? nam agno ſignificari Chriſtum nemo inficias eat. Quomodo ergo ſanguis ex agno eductus; ſignificabit crucem non eductam ex Chriſto? ſanguis, inquam, effuſus, crucem compactam?
Dr. Hammond.
In the forehead particularly cTom. 10. p. 289. B.in fronte figat ubi ſedes pudoris) becauſe the ſeate of ſhame is there, which wee render, in token that the baptiſed ſhall not bee aſhamed.