Two Popish Heretics Confuted, Rejoinder · Article 4
The fourth Article.
That the signe of the crosse was vsed in all sacraments &c.Martial.
That it hath bene vsed in the later declining times,Fulke. we will not stande with Martiall, but that in the best and purest age of the Church, by the Apostles and their imediate successors it was vsed, or allowed before the Valentinian heretikes, I affirme, that Martiall can not proue by any auncient authenticall writer, betweene the Apostles and Irenaeus. Wherefore Master Calfhil aunswereth well, that the ceremonie once taken vppe of good intent, being growen into so horrible abuse, is iustly refused of vsus. Martiall will knowe what our vocation is, as though we were not able to proue our calling both before God and men. Our Synodes he refuseth, bicause no Councel can be kept without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, in which point as many of Papistes are against him, which holde that euen a generall Councel may be kept to depose an euill Pope, against his will: so he mistaketh the Tripartite historie and Iulian Bishop of Rome, where they speake of generall Councels and Synodes, to determine of matters of faith, from which the Bishop of Rome while he was a Bishop, was not to be excluded, bicause those cases touch all Bishops, dreaming that they speake of all Councels. But long after their times, it was practised as lawfull, for Kinges and Bishops of seuerall prouinces, to gather and holde prouincial synods, for the state of their seueral Churches, without the consent or knowledge of the Bishop of Rome. In which some things hauehave bene determined against the will of the Bishop of Rome, as in the councels of Carthage and Affrike, and in generall Councels also, as in that of Calcedon, Constantinople the 5. & 6. the Councels of Constans and Basil. But signing with the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles, and so accounted by S. Basil, therefore we ought not to forsake it for any abuse (saith Martial. But howe will S. Basil persuade vsus of that, when we finde it not in their writings: it is more safe therefore, to followe his counsell in his short definitiōs q. 1. where he affirmeth, yt it is not lawfull for any man to permit him selfe to doe or say any thing without the testimonie of the holy scriptures. And this we will hold euen with Basils good leaue, against all pretended traditions of the Apostles what so euer. We Knowe the Apostle willeth vsus to hold the traditions, either learned by his Epistles, or by his Sermōs. But what he deliuered in his sermons, we can not tell, but by his Epistles. Yes, saith Martial, the church telleth you of ye signe of the crosse, but seeing ye church telleth vsus of other things, which are left and forsaken, auouching them likewise to be traditions of the Apostles, which ought not to hauehave ben so giuē ouer, if they had ben Apostolike traditions in deed, we see no cause why we may not refuse these, aswel as those, hauing no ground of certaintie for apostolike traditions, but only ye Apostolike writings. Tertullian coūteth ye tasting of milke & hony after baptisme, for an Apostolike tradition, bicause it was a ceremonie in his time, as wel as crossing, ye one was left long ago, why may not ye other be forsakē yt hath no better ground, & hath ben worse abused? Concerning the tale of Probianus, which foloweth next after this discourse, I wil referr the reader to mine answere to D. Sand. booke against images, c1. 13. or 12. after ye error of his print, where Calfhil thinketh it not meete, yt should be restrained to that whereof there is no precept in scripture, nor they them selues yeld lawful cause, Marti. telleth him, yt he must be restrained, if he will be good Christian. For there is no precept in expresse scripture to beleue three persons & one God in ye blessed Trinitie, ye equalitie of substance of Christ with his father in his godhead &c. The pertual virginitie of Marie, ye keping of ye Sunday, ye sacrament receiuing fasting, ye baptisme of infants &c. you see what an Atheist he is, yt can find no more certaintie in ye scriptures, for ye blessed Trinitie, then for S. Maries virginitie: for the godhed of Christ, then for receiuing ye Cōmunion before other meates. If Papistes hauehave no ground to their faith out of the scriptures, yet we can proue what so euer is necessarie for vsus to beleeue. It he dalie vpō ye word expresse scripture, either he answereth not to ye same thing wherof he is demanded, or else he knoweth not yt an argument rightly concluded out of holy scripture, is as good as ye very words of ye scripture, as when I say, if Peter beleued & was baptized ergo, he was saued, is as true, as these words, whosoeuer beleueth & is baptized, shall be saued. To ye second demand, whether ye ancient fathers did attribute such vertue to the wagging of a finger, yt the holy Ghost could be called downe, & ye diuell driuen away by it. Mart. answereth: it is most euident, that as soone as praier is duly made, & the signe of the crosse made, the holy Ghost according to the promise of Christ, commeth downe & sanctifieth &c. and the diuel is driuē away. This is Mart. euidence, other reason he bringeth If he referre the promise and comming of the holy Ghost to prayer, he playeth the palterer, that being demanded of the crosse, answereth of praier. Otherwise, let him shewe what promise Christ hath made to the signe of the crosse, or to prayer with the signe of the crosse, more then without it. If he can not, you may easily see his pouertie. To the thirde, whether they would hauehave refused the Church and sacraments for want of a crosse, He beleeueth verily they would not: for the sacraments lacketh not the vertue if the signe of the crosse be omitted: yet the fault is great when the tradition of the Apostles is wilfully reiected. Whether it be like they deliuered any needlesse or vnprofitable ceremonie, let wise men iudge. After this, followeth a long and foolish dialogisme, about the interpretation of Cyprians wordes. What so euer the ministers of the sacraments be, what so euer the handes are that dippe those that come to baptisme, what so euer the brest is, out of which the holy wordes proceede, the authoritie of operation giueth effect to all sacraments in the figure of the crosse, and the name which is aboue all names, being called vponupon, by dispensers of the sacraments doth all. Martial so scanneth these wordes, as though M. Calfhil knewe not the difference betweene the power of God, and the ministerie of man in the sacraments, whiche Cyprian doth plainly distinguish in these wordes. But to the purpose, Cyprian seemeth to make the figure of the crosse a meane by which God worketh in the sacraments. But in deede hee meaneth, that all sacraments take their effect of the passion of Christ, as a bare signe and token whereof they vsed the figure of the crosse, and not as a meane whereby God worketh, seeing it is confessed by Martial, that the sacraments if the signe of the crosse be omitted lacke not their vertue. An other foolish brable and vsherlike construing, he maketh of Cyprians words, de baptismo Verborum solemnitas & sacri inuocatio nominis, & signa attributa institutionibus Apostolicis sacerdotum ministerijs visibile sacramentum celebrant. For reprouing Master Calfhil for translating signa attributa institutionibus apostolicis, signes attributed to the institutions of the Apostles, he teacheth him to conster signes attributed by the Apostolicall institutions, through the ministerie of the priestes. Wherein I maruell that such an auncient student, will nowe suffer the word attributa, to goe without a datiue case, which I thinke he would not hauehave done in his pettite schoole at Winchester. But if I might be bolde vnderunder ye correction of such a grounded grammarian, to conster the lesson ouer againe, I would giuegive the Latine this English. The solemnitie of wordes and inuocation of the holy name, and the signes appointed by the institutions of the Apostles, for the ministerie of the priestes, doth make the visible sacramēt. And what be those signes? By M. Martials leaue, the elements, as water, breade and wine. But then M. Grindal (whom I laugh to see this wise Dialogue maker, to bring in swearing, once or twise in this deuised talke, as though out Bishops vsed that veine, as commonly as Popish prelats) M. Grindal I say, must send me to Saint Anthonies schoole, bicause the elements of the sacraments be of Christes owne institution, and not of his Apostles, wherfore those signes must be other goodly ceremonies, and the signe of the crosse must not be lest. But if Martial euer were a scholler in that schoole, or any other of any value, he might hauehave learned long agoe, that institutio signifieth not onelyonly the first beginning of an ordinance, but also a teaching or doctrine: and so doth Cyprian meane, that by the doctrine of the Apostles, ye Priestes are appointed to vse those signes, which if Martials Vshership will not admit, Cyprian in telling what maketh ye visible sacramēt, hath left out the principal part thereof, namely the element, and that which in deede in it is onelyonly visible, for the solemnitie of wordes and inuocation are audible rather then visible. But in this foolish Dialogue is cited Iustinus Apol. 2. to proue that the olde Fathers vsed the signe of the crosse, in all sacraments. Iustinus Martyr (saith he in the place of M. Grindal) talking of the crosse, biddeth vsus viewe in our mindes, and consider with reason, all thinges that are in the worlde, and see whether sine haec figura administrentur, they may be done without this signe. How like it is that M. G. shold say, Iustinus biddeth vsus, when he biddeth ye Gentiles, I leaue to speake of. But that he speaketh of our sacramentes, how will Martiall prooue? When both he speaketh to the Heathen, and of Heathenishe customes and ceremonies, or els ciuill and naturall matters. As of sayling, plowing, digging and all handie craftes, whose tooles had some figure of the crosse, in which the Gentiles did so fondely abhorre and despise Christ for it. Whereas it was to be found euen in the shape of man, in the trophees and standerdes of their Emperour, in the consecration of their dead Emperours images, whom they worshipped as Gods. For which causes Iustinus thought it vnreasonable, that they should contemne Christ for his crosses sake. But of vsing the signe of the crosse in all sacramentes there is no mention in Iustinus. That in Chrysostomes time & other more ancient fathers, ye signe of ye crosse was vsed at the celebration of the sacramentes, M. Calfhil granteth as a ceremonie, & you confesse, It is but a ceremonie, and that our sacramentes lacking the signe of the crosse, and that vsual ceremonie be perfect notwithstanding. And yet you exclaime against vsus for omitting a needelesse ceremonie, where we see it hath bene turned from that indifferent vsage of the forefathers, into an idolatrous custome & opiniō of necessitie. The credite of Dionysiꝰ for so ancient a scholler of S. Paul as you would make him, it too much cracked by Erasmus to be cured by Martial. Where M. Calfhil truly faith, & you can not deny, but he hath as good authoritie, for honie, mike, wine, to be restored in baptisme, and the communion to be giuen to children, as you hauehave for the crosse: you aunswere, these were altered by the Church of Rome, which hath authoritie so to do, ye crosse stil remaineth: but marke what you say, were these traditions of the Apostles? if you say no, ye like wil I say of the crosse, for ye same authoritie cōmendeth thē al a like, for traditions of the Apostles. Wel if they were traditions of ye Apostles by the holy Ghost, which you hold to be of equal authoritie wt yt scriptures, & ye Church of Rome hath abolished the one, why may she not abolish the other? so yt your answer conteineth manifest blasphemie. To fortifie your traditions, you alledge yt Iesus did many thinges which are not written, &c. but you leaue of yt which foloweth, but these are written, yt you might be leeue, & in beleeuing hauehave eternal life. Io. 20. & yet S. Iohn speketh of miracles, not of ceremonies to be vsed in baptisme, wherunto you apply it. But Iesus himself saith, he hath many things to say that ye apostles could not then beare, &c. Ioan. 16. And you would know in what worke of the Apostles those thinges are written, yea you would hauehave the Chapter noted. Pleaseth it you to looke your selfe in the Actes of the Apostles, and in their Epistles, &c. And you shall finde, that the scriptures will instruct the man of God vntounto all good works, & make him wise vntounto saluation, if these wil not serue your turn, seeke where you wil, & find ye deuil & eternal damnatiō. But I pray you, could not ye apostles beare yt hearing of the signe of the crosse, of salt, oyle, spittle in baptisme, were these such harde lessons to learn, or heauy to beare? if you think they were, I enuy not vntounto you so wise a thought. But you will teach vsus how we shal know, yt these are traditions of ye apostles, to this inquire you answer, euen as we know ye gospels & epistles to be ye Canonical scriptures, by authoritie of ye church, which you think sufficient for yt purpose. But so do not we, for although we receiue the testimony of ye Church, yet we hauehave greater authoritie out of ye scriptures of ye old Testamēt, & yt spirit by which they were writē, being alwais ye same by which we are perswaded yt ye gospels & epistles are the holy scriptures. Againe ye vniuersal Church of all times & places giueth witnes to those writings, so doeth it not to these traditions.
Therefore we are neuer the neare to knowe Apostolical traditions, by authoritie of the Popish church, whiche ascribeth thinges manifestly contrary to the worde of God and writinges of the Apostles, to Apostolike traditions, as Images, halfe communion, priuate Masse, &c. After this brabbling of traditions, followeth a long brawle about numbers, which the Papistes do superstitiously obserue, and of the authoritie of the seuentie interpreters, whose translation if it were extant, no doubt but it were worthie of great reuerence, but seeing these questions are fruitelesse, and impertinent vntounto the article, I wil clearely omit them: Martial returning to proue that the signe of the crosse was vsed in consecrating the body and bloud of Christ, findeth himselfe greatly greeued, that M. Calfhil calleth the Masse the sacrifice of the deuil, wherein be so many good things, as the Collets, Gospel, epistle, Gloria in Excelsis, &c. by which reasō I might proue a diuelish coniuration in which be so many names of God, and good words, to be an holy peece of worke. Therfore it is not many good parts abused to make a wicked thing good, that can iustifie the Masse, which is an hurrible blasphemie against the death and onelyonly sacrifice of Christ. But M. Calfhil doth not satisfie him, where he citing out of Albertus Magnus, That Christ did blesse the sacrament with a certeine signe of his hand, as Iacob laide his hands on Iosephs sons, and Christ laid his hands vponupon the children, & lifted vp his hands, & blessed his Apostles, &c. asketh why we might not say Christ made a signe of ye crosse, considering that Chrisostome, Augustine, and Euthymus testifie, that in their time, the signe of ye crosse was vsed in consecration, this question (he saith) is not soluted. This is sone answered, because laying on of hands, and lifting vp of handes, which be sometime vsed in blessing, doth not proue a crossing with the finger: of ones hand, as the Papistes vse, and because the Euangelistes which describe all that he then saide or did for vsus to followe, make no mention of any such signe of hand made by him in blessing. The long discourse that followeth of blessing and giuing of thankes, is needelesse, for we know and confesse, that as they somtimes signifie all one thing, so they differ sometimes: & we confesse that the bread and wine in the Lords supper were blessed, that is to say sanctified and consecrated but not with any signe of hand, which is the mater in question, but with the worde of God, and with prayer: not onelyonly as bodily meates, but as heauenly and spirituall mysteries, to feede the soule. But it is a sport to see, how Martiall when he hath prooued that which was not in question, that the bread & wine were blessed & sanctified by Christ, & that they must nowe be so consecrated by the Church, he runneth away with the signe of the Crosse, whereof he hath brought no proofe of the vse by Christ: saying, There must be consecration by honouring the wordes of Christ, and calling vponupon his name, & making the signe of the crosse, which maner of cōsecration the Church learned of Christ, & hath continued euer since: so that we may boldly say with Albertus. He blest it with a certeine signe of his hand. But I pray you sir, where learned you this signe vsed by Christ? How proue you that it hath bene vsed ever since? It is inough for Martiall to say, that all the learning in English Doctours will neuer be able to proue this assertion of his to be friuolous.
But seeing he is so Greekish, to teach M. Calfhil to conster Saint Paules wordes? foreign, &c. and findeth fault with him for giuing the aoristes the signification of the present temps, let him looke in his lexicon, where I weene al his Greeke is, how he will abide▪ by this saying: foreign in Saint Matthew, foreign in Saint Luke, foreign in Saint Paule, hauehave relation to the bread and wine, and answere to the question whom or what▪ seeing foreign is no verbe transitiue, although the Christian writers, as Iustinus Martir, hath fayned a passiue vntounto it.
Again in the saying of Chrysostom Ho. 24. in 1. Cor. Cap. 10. where Martiall will hauehave vsus marke that the body of Christ is seeene vponupon the altar, let him & his felowes marke, that if it be none otherwise there, then as it is seene, it is present onelyonly to the faith, by whose eye it is seene.
After this tedious treatise of bleassing and thankesgiuing, he commeth to his olde petition or principle, that the signing with the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles: and angry he is, that he should be called on to proue yt it is a tradition of the Apostles, whereof he can finde no mention in Ecclesiastical writers before ye Valentinian heretikes. And wheras Cyprian Ad Panpeium calleth all traditions to the writings & commandement of the Apostles, he crieth out yt Cyprian is slandered, because he him selfe alledgeth the tradition of Christ for mingling of water with ye wine. If Cyprian breake his own rule, who can excuse him? But if he had ben vrged as much for the necessitie of water, as he was for the necessitie of wine in ye sacrament, he wold hauehave better considered of the matter. Frō this matter he descendeth to proue the number of sacramentes to be seuen, because matrimony is of some olde writers called a sacrament, when they meane not a sacrament in yt sense that baptisme is a sacrament, but generally a mistery. And because M. Calfhil saith, that sacramentes were signes ordeined of God to confirme our faith, he wil proue yt we hauehave no sacraments at all, because baptisme if it be ministred to men of yeares, confirmeth not their faith, for they must hauehave their faith cōfirmed before they be baptised, & so must they that receiue ye communion. But when infantes be baptised they hauehave no faith but the faith of the Church, & therefore their faith can not be confirmed. Did you euer heare such a filthy hogge grunt so beastly of the holy sacraments, that they shold be no helps of our father. We beleue yt infants, although they hauehave no faith whē they are baptised, yet hauehave their faith cōfirmed by their baptisme euē to their liues end. And yt they which come to ye Lordes …able wt a true faith in Gods promises, hauehave ye same cō firmed by the seale of his word which is that holy sacrament. Martial calleth for scriptures. Among a thousand texts, this one shal serue: Abrahā receiued yt signe of circumcision, a seale of the righteousnes of faith, which he had being vncircumcised, Rom. 4. v. 11. Tell vsus Martiall by thy lawe, wherefore a seale serueth, if not for confirmation? But what should I talke with them of faith, which as they hauehave none in the promises of God, so they knowe not what in meaneth.
To that reason of Master Calfhill, that Matrimonie bath no promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes, he answereth, denying that eueryevery sacrament hath a promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes annexed, and afterward he asketh where hath the supper of our Lorde a promise of remission of sinnes? for sinnes are forgiuen before the sacrament be receiued. Is this ye diuinitie of Louaine? is the holy supper auayleable neither for confirmation of faith, nor to forgiuenesse of sinnes?
Wherfore saith Christ of the cupp? This is my bloud of the newe Testament which is shed for many vntounto forgiuenesse of sinnes. Nay (sayth Martiall) if there be a remission of sines, then is it a sacrament propitiatorie, contrary to your owne doctrine. Nothing the sooner, so long as remission of sinnes be not tyed to the work wrought, according to your heresie, but sealed vntounto the faith of the worthie receiuer. Likewise he quarrelleth against that reason, that Matrimonie conferreth no grace, which is easily proued by this, that Matrimony is good being contracted among Gentyles & heathen persons. And whereas he bringeth in the blessing of God to married persons, either they be such as pertein to all men in general, & so proue no grace of mariage in ye church, or else to ye faithful only, & so pertaine to faith & not to marriage: as yt the faithful woman shall be saued by bringing forth of children. The questiō of marriage after deuorcement, because it pertaineth not to ye Crosse I wil not meddle with it, M. Calfhill hath sayd more then Martial can answere.
Touching the popish sacrament of penance, which Martiall and not S. Hierome calleth the second table after shipwracke. M. Calfhil hath likewise proued effectually, that it is no sacrament of Christs Church: Against which, Martiall bringeth nothing but certein sentences of scripture, to proue how necessary repentance is after men hauehave sinned, to obteine remission of sinnes. Whereof S. Hierome speaketh, and not of Popish penance, consisting of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, with their blasphemous absolution.
Concerning extreme vnction, that it is no perpetual sacrament of the Church, it is plaine by scripture because the gift of healing which was annexed vntounto ye annoynting of oyle, spoken of in S. Iames, hath long agoe ceased: Wherefore it followeth, that the same ceremonie of annoynting was temporall, euen as the promise of bodily health that was ioyned to it, was temporall. Finally, touching the Councel of Trent, that hath allowed all these for sacraments, how lawfull it was, whē he that was accused for heresie, should be the onelyonly Iudge, I thinke Martiall by his lawe could discusse if he list. And as for the saueconduit graunted to the Protestants, they hauehave learned by the case of I. Hus and Hierom of Prage, to trust the faith of Papistes, as much as they like their religion. To conclude, there is nothing prooued in this article, which pretended, that the crosse was alwayes vsed in the sacraments. And it is confessed, that when it is vsed, it is but a ceremonie, and such as the want therof taketh not away the effect of the sacraments, wherfore seeing the sacraments are perfect without it, they are not to be condemned, which vponupon good grounde and sufficient authoritie hauehave refused it.