Two Popish Heretics Confuted, Rejoinder · Article 3
The thirde Article.
That eueryevery Church, Chappell, and Oratorie erected to the honour and seruice of God,Martial. should hauehave the signe of the crosse.
First it is to be remembred,Fulke. that for this position he hath no shewe of the authoritie of the holy scriptures, nor yet the testimony of any auncient writer, that any Church, Chappell, or Oratory should hauehave any crosse grauen or painted within it or vponupon it for 500. yeares after Christ. Eusebius describing diuerse Churches builded in his time, sheweth no such necessary furniture of a Christian Church, although, he set foorth euen the fashion of the stalles or stooles where the ministers should sit lib. 10. cap. 4.
But Martial to hauehave shewe of antiquitie, beginneth with a newe found olde doctour, called Abdias, whose authoritie, seeing Maister Calfhill reiecteth as a meere countefet, Martial spendeth certaine leaues in quarrelling at some of his reasons, and the rest he passeth ouer because he can say nothing against them. But touching the credite of this Abdias, if any man be not satisfied with M. Calfhils reasons. I referre him further to the Bishop of Sarums booke against Harding. Art 1. Diu. 5. p. 8.
To speake of the vowe of virginitie supposed to be made by the virgine Marie, it is impertinent to the cause. It commeth somewhat nearer, that he defendeth building of Churches in the honour of Saintes, because some Churches of olde hauehave had the name of Saintes. But Augustine saith of the Saintes. Quare honoramus eos charitate, non seruitute, nec eis Templa construimus, nolunt enim se sic honorari a nobis, quia nos ipsos cùm boni simus, templa summi Deiesse nouerunt. Wherfore we honour them with louelove, not with seruice: Neither doe we builde Churches to them, for they will not be so honoured of vsus, because they knowe that we our selues when we are good, are ye temples of the highest God: De vera religion. Ca. 55. Also Ep. 174. Pascentio He proueth the holy ghost to be God, because he hath a temple. Also Euch. ad Laurent. Cap. 56. The like iudgement he hath de ciuis. Dei. li. 8. Cap. 27. & li. 22. Ca. 10. shewing that it is a diuine honor proper to God, to hauehave temples erected to his honor, and declaring that ye Martyrs churches were places set vp in their memorie, not temples in their honour.
But Martiall fynding nothing for the space of 500 yeares after Christ for his purpose, at length stumbleth vponupon a Canon of the prouinciall Councell of Orleans in Fraunce: that No man should buyld a Church before the Bishop came & set vp a crosse. This canno made in those dayes, sheweth yt churches before the making therof were builded without a crosse, neither bindeth it any, but such as build churches within the prouince of Orleans. Beside that it may be doubted of the antiquitie of the Canon, seeing it is not found in the recordes of yt councell, but taken out of the Popes Canon lawe, where is most counterfait stuffe. Beside that it is not obserued among the Papists themselues, that before any chuch, chappel, or Oratorie be buylded, the bishop of the diocesse should come and make a crosse there. The next Canon he citeth our of ye Councell of Toures the 2. Vt corpus domini in altari, non in armario, sed sub crucis titulo componatur, that the Lords body be layde on the altar, not in a chest or almery, but vnderunder the title of the crosse. But Martial doth english it thus: That the body of our Lord consecrated vponupon The Altar, be not reposed and set in the reuestry, but vnderunder the roode. He braggeth y• when he was Vsher of Winchester schoole, he taught his Schollers ye true signification of the Latine words.Pro Clu. But beside that hee translateth Armarium a reuestrie,Pro Cel. which Tully vseth for a place wherein money was kept,In Ant. which could not wel be an open house, & also maketh a manifest difference betweene Armarium & Sacrar…, beside also that hee calleth titulum crucis the roode, where findeth he in this sentence the Latine worde for his English worde, consecrated? But to the purpose of the crosse, this Canon sheweth, that in old time they vsed to lay it otherwise then vnderunder the title of the crosse, whether they meant thereby the signe of the crosse, or these wordes, Iesus Naz. rex Iudaeorum, which was the title of the crosse, as they had in those dayes many ceremonies growne out of vse, and therefore not vnderstood of vsus.
The third Councel is a Canon of the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople in Trullo, which in the margent he calleth the Councell of Chalcedon in Trullo. Can. 73. which M. Calfhil could not finde in yt Councel, because it is certeine, & confessed by Geranza, Martials author, that the sixt Councel of Constantinople in Trullo made no ceremonies but of ye faith, & that these which he setteth forth, were made priuatly by them long after in the dayes of Iustinian, therfore they hauehave neither the authoritie of Canons, nor be free from suspition of forgery. And yet the Canon alledged, proueth not this article, for it only commā deth crosses that were made in the pauement to be put out. Nay, sayth Martiall, the prohibition of the crosse to be made on the ground, permitteth it to be made in all other places. For a prohibition restrictiue of a thing to be done in one place, is a lawfull permission for all other places, which are not namely included in that prohibition. And for this he referreth him selfe to ye iudgement of the lawyers. But I thinke his lawe deceiueth him in this point, as much as his diuinitie almost in eueryevery point. For if ye kings edict forbid swearing, fighting, brawling in his court, I suppose he doeth not permit these things as lawfull in al other places. The last Canon which forbad ye laying of ye lords body in ye vestri, doth not lawfully permit it to be layd in the belfry. The captains prohibition, yt no man shal discharge his belly within ye precinct of ye camp, is not a lawful permission yt a soldiar may defile a church without ye campe.
The lawe that forbiddeth the Princes image to be made on the pauement, is not a lawfull permission that the same may be set vppon the high altar, what Martials lawe is in these cases, I knowe not, but my reason serueth me not to allowe of those prohibitions for lawfull permission. And where these Canon makers saye: They did reuerence the liuely crosse with minde, tongue, and sense. Martiall inferreth, that this worde sense, declareth that they had a sensible crosse, to which they might shewe their reuerence with their externall senser: Which senses Martiall? their sight, their hearing, their smelling, their tasting, or their feeling. Did you teache your schollers at Winchester thus to interpret? was it the image of the crosse, or the liuely crosse that shewed them that sauing health, which they professe to reuerence in worde and minde? And were you went to conster Cum seeing, viuifica crux the liuing crosse, ostenderit doth shewe. For thus you giuegive mee example to play with you. And if one of your boyes that learned Terence, had so construed, would you not hauehave streight way asked him, Cuius modi & temporis oftenderit, if he had annswered, the Preterperfect tense: you woulde hauehave demaunded, whether doth, be the signe of that temps, or hauehave. If hauehave, then hauehave not you rightly translated Cum crux viuifica illud sab… are nobis ostenderit: Seeing the liuing crosse doeth shewe vntounto vsus that healthfull thing. Wherefore to leaue this trifling, the Canon is this: Seeing the liuing crosse (that is to say the passion of Christ) hath shewed vntounto vsus that sauing health, it behoueth vsus to employ all our studie, that we may giuegive vntounto it, by which we are saued from our olde fall, that honour which is conuenient. Wherefore, giuing reuerence vntounto it with minde, speache, and vnderstanding. wee commaund that the figures of the crosse which are made of some in the ground and pauement, be vtterly taken away, lest the trophee of our victorie be iniuried by treading of those that passe ouer it.
It is not without fraude, yt beside your false translation, you hauehave omitted per quam ab antiquo lapsu seruati sumus, lest eueryevery popish woman might see, that the Canon speaketh not of honour giuen to the image of the crosse, whereby we are not saued, but to the passion of Christ.
But Martiall reiecteth the Councell of Constantinople condemning images, as M. Calfhill doth the 2. of Nice, allowing them. The best way then as Augustine conncelleth ye heretike Maximinus, were to giuegive ouer the hold of Councels on both sides, & try ye matter by the word of God.
It is a fond quarrel yt he picketh to M. Calfhill, of ye time when ye Eliberine councel was kept, if it be auncienter then hee supposeth, it is of greater credite, for ye latter times were more corrupt. And whereas he gi… deth at ye marriage of ministers, because in the 27. Canon of yt Councel, the bishop or priest was forbidden to hauehave any woman to dwell with him, but either his sister or his daughter being a virgine & professed to God, he sheweth both his falshod & his folly: his falshod, for yt he translateth extraneam which is a strange woman, no other woman. His folly, in seeing ye priests daughter, he cannot see his wife but the 33. Canon cō mandeth them abstinence as from their wiues, & begetting of children. I answere, if ye Canon were not to be vnderstood of a temporal abstinence, the generall Councell of Nice decreed against it, as appeareth in Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 11.
But touching the Canon against Images: Placuit, we decree, that pictures ought not to be in the Church, lest that which is worshipped & adored, should be painted on the walles. First he repeteth his principle of law, before set downe for prohibition, y• pictures are only forbidden, & not other images: as though he y• forbiddeth wounding permitteth murthering, beside that, they shuld be simple images in which were no picture or painting. Secondly, he saith, that pictures on walles only are forbidden, but therin he lyeth, for they are generally forbidden in ye church, ergo not in walles only. Thirdly he saith, here is an euident proofe, that pictures were then worshipped. For this argument followeth necessarily vpō these words. That was worshipped, that was forbidden to be paynted in the walles: but pictures were forbidden to be painted vponupon walles, ergo, pictures were worshipped. Answere M. Calfhill. Who would hauehave thought y• an Vsher of Winchester & student in Louaine, that teacheth vsus an old lawyers poynt, would also teach vsus a new Logike point, to cō clude affirmatiuely in ye second figure, & yt all vpō particulers? Answere M. Calf. quod Martial. Nay, answere goose to such an argument. And reason who will any longer with such an asse about this matter, for I will harken to his law, seeing his Logike is no better. For the better vnderstanding of a statute or a Canon diuerse circumstances are to be considered. This was lawe ynough to make him a bachiler. Well the circumstances are these. The authors of this Canon were Catholike & wise bishops, the place Granata a citie in Spain, which had then many infidels, that thought Christians to commit idolatrie by hauing of Images. The time when they feared persecution, as appeareth by the 59 & 60. Canon. But if we beleeue Garanza, your author, it was about ye time of ye Nicene councel, when no persecution could be feared; & therfore your cause which you make ye fourth circūstance, is forged, yt they feared lest those images should hauehave ben despitefully abused by ye Pagans, when they were fled: neither are you able to proue it, & therfore in ye end you cōclude, it was but a synod of 19. Bishops, whose decre was vndone by ye second Nicen general councel, ye Councel at Frankford. &c. That ye councel of Frankfort yt cōdemned ye councel of Nice, he only denyeth yt it did so, but answereth not ye authoritie cited by M. Calfhill. The booke of Carolus Magnus against images he condē neth for a forged tale, although ancient writers make mention of it, & the style of the book doth argue ye it was written in that time, if not by the Emperour, yet by his appointment. But seeing he referreth vsus to the confutation of the Apologie fol. 328. I wil referre the readers to the defence of the Apologie for the same matter.
After this, he spendeth certaine leaues, in defending the credite of Irenee the idolatrous Empresse, and in defacing those Emperours that were enimies to images, wherein he hath the idolatrous historians fauourable, not sparing to report what so euer their malicious enimies could inuent, to slaunder them. But hereof I hauehave written somewhat in myne aunswere to D. Sanders booke of images cap. 4. or 3. & cap. 15. or. 14.
Nowe commeth in S. Ambrose extolling the crosse: Ser. 56. As a Church cannot stand without a crosse, so a ship is weake without a mast. For by and by the diuell doth disquiet it, and the wind doth squat it, but when ye signe of the crosse is set vp, by and by both the iniquitie of the diuell is beaten backe, and the tempest of wind is appeased. Here Martial triumpheth against M. Calfhil, that the author speaketh not of a crosse beame in the Church, but of the signe of the crosse. But he lyeth shamefully, for this writer speaketh not of a materiall Church, Chappel, or Oratorie, but of the congregation of Christe, in which the crosse and passion of Christ hath ye same force that the mast in a ship, which is made after the figure of the crosse, and the plough beame in tillage &c. His other sentence Serm. 55. is yet more plaine against him, Arbor enim quaedam in naui est crux in ecclesia, quae inter totius saeculi blāda & perniciosa naufragia incolumis sola seruatur. In hac ergo naui quisquis aut arbori crucis se religauerie, aut aures suas scripturit diuinis clauserit, dulcem procellam luxuriae non timebit. For the crosse in the Church is as it were a certaine tree in a ship, which among ye flattring & pernitious shipwracks of ye whole world alone is preserued in safetie. In this ship therefore who so euer shal either bind him selfe to y• tree of the crosse, or stop his eares with the holy Scriptures, he shall not feare the sweete storme of luxuriousnesse, &c. He alludeth to the fable of Vlysses which tyed him selfe to the mast, and stopped his eares with waxe, that he might not heare the song of the Mermaydes. This sentence (whereof Martial durst cite but three or foure wordes) declareth that his authour maketh nothing for the title of this Article of erecting the crosse in Churches, Chappels &c. And yet when all is done, I must confesse with the learned, that these Sermons were not written by S. Ambrose, but by one Maximus of latter time, Bishop either of Taurinum or of Millain.
Concerning the tale that you father vponupon syr Ambrose Caue, of an Island by Rhodes, and a rode there where no anchor nor cable will holde the ship, vnlesse the mariner make the signe of the crosse ouer ye place where he casteth anchor: It may be, he reported it as a fond persuasion of superstitious people, but I thinke no that he gaue any credit to it. Poperie is full of such tales. But why doe you charge M. Calfhil with a lye, for saying that in the Popish catholike time, the churche of Pauls was twise burned within 50. yeares space. Marie, bicause it was not on Corpus Christie eue, nor the Communion table was burned with al the foure yles within the compasse of three or foure houres, therefore it was no the like plague. But howe often hath the sacrament of the alter, (your God) bene burned, when Churches were fiered? Moe thinges, in which there is any diuersitie, shall be like, by Martials logike or lawe, I can not tell whether it is, by which he condemneth M. Calfhil for a lyer.
Touching Lactantius, he reasoneth to and fro of his authoritie him selfe, and yet chargeth M. Calfhil for so doing. Our iudgement of Lactantius, as of all olde writers is this, that what so euer they speake contrarie to the trueth of the holy Scriptures, we may boldly reiect it; what so euer they say agreeable vntounto them, we doe willingly admit it. The chiefe matter touching this article, is this, that certaine verses are ascribed to Lactantius, exhorting men to worship the crosse, which verses M. Calfhil denieth to hauehave bene written by Lactantius. First bicause S. Hierome in the Catalogue of his works, maketh no mention of them: but they might be vnknowne to Hierome, saith Martiall. It is not like they could be vnknowne to Hierome, and knowne to Martial. Secondly, bicause he speaketh of Churches, that were scarsly builded in Lactantius time, but Martial proueth, that Christians had churches euen in the Apostles time, and euer since, as though any man doth doubt of yt, but of such churches as this versifier speaketh of. Thirdly, bicause the doctrine of these verses, cōcerning images, is contrarie to yt Lactantius taught, and was generally receiued in his dayes. Martiall replyeth, that all which Lactantius did write against images, was against the false images of the heathen, and not against the holy images of the Christians. But Christians in his time had no images as holy, in any vse of religion, and his argumēts are generall against all images in religion. Finally, it is also manifest, that his versifier making a Poeticall prosopopeia, induceth Christe hanging vponupon the crosse, and speaking to him that commeth into the Church, and therfore no argument of crosse or image may be rightly gathered out of the poeme, who so euer was the author. For immediatly after this verse, Flecte genu, lignúmque crucis venerabile adora, followeth: Flebilis innocuo terrámque cruore madentem, Ore petens humilis, lachrymis suffunde subortis. Bowe thy knee, worship the venerable wood of ye crosse, And lamentably kissing with humble mouth the earth which is moyst with myne innocent bloud, wash it ouer with teares flowing out. By these verses then Martial may as wel proue, that the Church floore was moyst with the bloud of Christe, as that there was a crosse in the Church.
To Lactantius he ioineth Augustine, De Sanctis Hom. 19. saying. that Churches are dedicated with the signe of the crosse, where he not onelyonly chaunged the worde charactere into mysterio, but also translated the worde mysterio, by the signe: where he confesseth his fault, he may be pardoned, but where he iustifieth mysterio and sign… to be all one, he sheweth him selfe as he is. But howe will he persuade vsus, that those Homilies de tempore and de Sanctis, of which some one is ascribed to so many authours, were either written by Augustine, or by any of those times, the stile is so dissonant, that any man learned, and of indifferent iudgement, will confesse. Although it is not to be denyed, but the signe of the crosse was superstitiously abused, even in the dayes of Augustine, and long before Whereas Augustine reporteth of a woman called Innocentia, which had a canker healed in her brest by the signe of the crosse, if it were a miracle, it proueth not, that eueryevery Church, Chappell, and Oratorie, should hauehave a crosse. Great miracles were done by imposition of handes, yet it followeth not therefore, that eueryevery Church must hauehave imposition of handes. Againe, not onelyonly Cankers, but also Fistulaes, tooth ache, and many other diseases hauehave bene healed by charmes. And yet these charmes are not iustifiable thereby, much lesse to be brought into the Church, as wholesome ceremonies and prayers.
But albeit the crosse be no ordinarie meane, whereby God vseth to conserue health (saith Martial) yet may you not conclude, that he hath not ordained it to remaine in the Church, for any remembrance of his death and passion. For thinke you (saith he) he hath left no more meanes but the preaching of his worde, which eueryevery one can heare? Yes, it hath pleased his maiestie to ordaine by general Councels the signe of the crosse, and images to be a meane to put vsus in remembrance of Christes death &c. But seeing ye Church flourished 300. yeares without a general Councel, and neither that general Councel which was first holden, not three other which folowed, make mention of any such matter, where was the ordinance of God by generall Councels for the crosse? He will say it had the appointment of the prelates of the Church. Which? and when? eueryevery idle ceremonie and vngodly heresie that preuailed had ye prelates of the Church either for the authors or for the approuers. But Christ committed to the prelates (saith Martial) the charge and gouernment of his Church. Yea syr, to feede them with his word, and not with dombe signes and dead images, which things he hath forbidden.
Now come we to Paulinus Bish. of Nola, by whom it appeareth that ye signe of the crosse was set vp 1100. yeres agoe, in some churches: but the title of the Article is, that it should be set vp in al Churches. But Martial wil proue, that it was wel done by Paulinus, to set vp the signe of the crosse in his Church, bicause he was an holy and learned Bishop, and no Catholike Bishop or generall councel did find fault with him: for whatsoeuer any holy & learned father did at any time, and was not controlled of any Catholike father for his doing, was well done, and must be so taken. I denye this maior, For Augustine was an holy and learned Bishop, which did giuegive the Communion to infants, and thought it necessarie for their euerlasting saluation: neither was he controlled therefore, yet did he not well, neither was his opinion true. And where Martial taketh vponupon him the defence of Paulinus, in commending a woman that separated her selfe from her husband vnderunder pretence of religion, he playeth the prattling proctor, picking of quarels against M. Calfhil, without all honestie or shame, For he feigneth that the fault is alledged, for want of consent of her husband, whereas such separation as he cōmendeth wtout consent, is directly contrarie to the doctrine of ye holy Ghost, 1. Cor. 7. v. 5. Likewise where M. Calfhil nameth a booke that the Apostles wrote, Martial saith it was but of Pauls Epistles: where he saith it was laide vntounto diseases, M. Martial saith it saued a man from drowning, but of these quarels too much. Martiall cōfesseth, that were a Doctor swarueth frō scripture, no man ought to followe him. But if Paulinus swerued not from Scripture, when he brought images into the Church, we neede not doubt that any man swerued from Scripture, seeing nothing is more plaine in all the Scriptures, then forbidding of images and similitudes of any thing to be made or had in any vse of religion.
Where M. Chlfhil aunswereth to the decree of Iustinian (that no Church should be builded before the place were consecrated, and a crosse set vp by the Bishop) that this was a constitution of the externall pollicie, Martial laboureth to proue that it was religious, and yet at length graunteth that it was a matter of externall policie, wherevpon I inferre, that it was not of necessitie, and so the article is not proued thereby, that eueryevery church should &c. But it commeth of great wisdome, that he will defend the time of Iustinian from ignorance and barbaritie, bicause the ciuill lawe was then gathered, and a fewe learned men were found in the whole world. All this notwithstanding, the Barbarians had ouercome a great part of the Empire, and filled the world with ignorance and barbarousnesse. Against the decree of Valentinian and Theodosius cited out of Crinitus, he hath many quarells. First against Petrus Crinitus, who was as good a cleark as Martial, Then at the Homily against images, where the Printer calleth him Petrus Erinilus, yet againe ye Valentinian not being writtē at large, is mistakē for Valens, where it should be Valentinianus. And if Valens and Theodosius had made such a l…e, what an ouersight was it of Eusebius to suppresse it? When Eusebius was deade before any of them were borne, it was a great ouerfight in Martials iudgement, to suppresse in his storie a lawe made by them, which liued neare an hundreth yeare after him, so that belike he would hauehave Eusebius to write stories of thinges to come. But concerning that lawe of Valentinianus and Theodosius, you shall see more in mine aunswere to D. Sanders booke of images. cap. 13. or 12. The rest of this chapter is spent in commending the Church of Rome, whose custome it hath bene (saith Martial) these twelue hundreth yeares, to set the signe of the crosse in the Church, and Pope Pius the fourth did it him selfe of late &c. Concerning the Church of Rome, so long as she continued in true religion, and so far foorth as she mainteined the trueth, as she was greatly commended of auncient writers, whome Martiall nameth: so nowe it is to her greater reproch and shame, earum laudum & gloriae degenerem esse, that she is growen out of kinde and desert of all such prayses: as the Cleargie of Rome writing to Cyprian, lib. 2. Epist. 7. To conclude, therefore, there is nothing shewed to proue that eueryevery Church, Chappel, or Oratorie should hauehave a crosse, although in the latter and more corrupt times of the Church, it is declared, that some Churches had a crosse, and at length grewe to a custome in those parts of the world, that euerie church had one, and was thought necessarie that it should hauehave one.