Two Popish Heretics Confuted, Rejoinder · Article 5 – Article 6
The fifth Article.
That the Apostles & fathers of the primitiue Church blessed them selues with the signe of the crosse, Martiall.& councelled all Christian men to do the same, and that in those dayes a crosse was set vp in eueryevery place conuenient for it.
The first controuersie is of the signification of this worde benedicere, Fulke.which with Martiall is all one with signare. For although he finde not in the olde writers, benedicebant se signo crucis, they did blesse them selues with the signe of the crosse, yet he findeth signabant se signo crucis, they marked them selues with the signe of the crosse, which is all one with him. But not so with vsus: for there was another vse of marking at the firste, then for blessing. The Christians among the Pagans, marked them selues with the signe of the crosse, in token that they professed him that was crucified. Afterward to put them selues in minde of the death of Christ. These were tollerable vses of an indifferent ceremonie. The opinion of blessing with the crosse, as M. Calfhil sayeth, was taken (as the terme) from superstitious olde women. And Martiall cannot denye, but the terme of blessing in that sence, is a newe signification of the worde, and therefore not vsed of the auncient fathers, which that he might obscure with brabling, as his custome is, he repeateth his former iangling of the significations of this worde benedicere, and howe it sometime signifieth to blesse with the handes, as when Christe blessed his Apostles and the children. As though to vse a ceremonie of lifting vp, or laying on of hands, when he blesseth, is to blesse with a bare ceremonie of the handes, as they do with their crosse. Nay, he sayeth, to blesse with the crosse is as olde as Iacob, who with his handes acrosse blessed Iosephs children. The Papistes are wise in their generation, when they would not hauehave vnlearned mē to reade the scriptures. For euerye childe of seuen yeares age, reading the storie of Iacobs blessing, will easely perceiue, yt his laying of his hands ouerthwart, was not for any blessing with the crosse, but because he was to lay his right hand vponupon the yonger, and his left vponupon the elder, contrary to their fathers placing of them, which would hauehave had his elder sonne preferred. But seeing Martiall maketh himselfe so cunning in the significations of benedicere, to blesse, which he will not hauehave to say well, or pray for only, &c. but to sanctifie. Let him remember, that in his own sence, the Apostle sayeth to the Hebrues, cap. 7. ver. 7. yt which is lesse or inferior is blessed of the superior, by which argument, he proueth Melchisedech to be greater then Abraham. If then the Apostles and fathers did blesse them selues with the signe of the crosse to sanctifie themselues, I demaunde, whether the signe of ye crosse was greater then the Apostles. For no man wil saye that the Apostles were greater then themselues. If it were not greater, then surely they were not blessed by it Wherein also the fable of Abdias is conuinced, which sayth of S. Paul: muniens se signo crucis, arming himselfe with the signe of the crosse. was the signe of the crosse stronger then S. Paul? for men arm them selues with harnesse of defence, which is stronger then them selues. Was not that foreign, that vniuersal armour or complete harnes, which he exhorteth other men to put on as sufficient to withstande all the assaultes of the diuell,Eph. 6. sufficient for him selfe without the signe of the crosse But seing ye Apostle there describeth ye whole armor of God, whereof the signe of ye crosse is not piece. It is certaine, that it is no armour meete for the defence of a Christian man: wherefore your fabling Abdias, and counterfait Clement can carry no credit with wise & learned Christians. Nor yet the examples of Antony, Martin, Donatus, & Paula reported of credible writers, yet no Euangelists, which armed themselues with the signe of the crosse, doeth either force or moue vsus to imitatiō, further then they had warrant for their doing out of the holy scriptures.
Where M. Calfhill sayeth, that the diuel delighted in the signe of the crosse, & fayned him selfe to be afrayd of it, that the heremit might runne to that sory succour, and men put more affiance in it. He meaneth that the diuel delighted in the superstitious opinion of it: for otherwise he doth neither feare nor louelove the signe of the crosse of it selfe: for if it had beene so terrible to the diuell as Martial and others do thinke, Saint Paul would not hauehave left it out of the complet harnes of God, whereby all the deceites & fiery darts of the diuell are withstood.
And although the elder and better age vsed and receiued that signe tolerably, yet considering the shamfull abuse thereof, it ought now of right & conscience to be condemned, as M. Calfhill sayeth. But Martiall wil none of that, for things good of their own nature, must not be taken away not condemned for ye abuse. Very true, but who will graunt him, that the signe of the crosse is good of it selfe? It is as much as may be borne, to grant it to be a thing indifferent. And wheras Martial wil acknowledge none abuse of that signe, what else should we say, but who is so blind as he yt wil not see? Concerning the authoritie of the Epistle of Epiphanius translated by S. Hierome, & his fact in rending a vaile wherein was painted an image, as it were of Christ, or some saint, &c. I will referre ye reader to mine answere to D. Sanders booke of images, Cap. 4. or according to the error of his print, Cap. 3. where he shal see all Martials cauils shaken of, except one, which I thinke no man euer espyed before this wylye lawyer, and that is of the words, quasi, hauing an image as it were of Christ or some saint, but not an image of Christ or of some saint in deede, for then he woulde not hauehave rent it, but perhaps in was an image of Iupiter, or Hercules, &c. But vnderunder correction of Master Vsher, this is but a quasy argument that is grounded vponupon quasi, as though it should signifie always a thing yt is not true, but as it were so & yet not so. For Cicero yt knew ye nature of ye word quasi as wel as Martial, vseth it otherwise, Illos qui oīa incer… dicunt, quasi desperatos aliquos relinquamus. As for them that saye: all things are vncerteine let vsus leaue, as mē past hope. Wil Martiall say they were not past hope in deede? S. Marke sayeth, that Christ did teache quasi potestatem habens, Mar. 1.as one that had authoritie, wil he say he had not authoritie in deede.Iohn. 1. S. Iohn saith of Christ, who hauehave seene his glory, quasi vnigeniti, as the glorye of the onelyonly begotten sonne of God. Let Martiall saye with the Arrians, he was but quasi vnigenitus, as it were the onelyonly begotten sonne of God, and not he in deede.
Againe, he sayeth, Cùm fecisset quasi flagellum, when he had made as it were a scourge, master Vsher will conster it so, that was not a scourge in deede, because he sayeth, as it were a scourge. But Martiall will still vrge the fact of Paula in worshipping the crosse of Christ, vntill it be shewed out of Epiphanius by better euidence then yet is shewed, that he woulde hauehave no crosse, no crucifixe, nor image in the Church. A mā would thinke this were sufficient euidence, when hee sayeth: Cùm ergo hoc vidissem in ecclesia Christi, contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, &c. Wherefore, when I sawe this, that in the Church of Christe did hang an image of a man, contrary to the authoritie of the scriptures, I rent it, &c. Further euidence out of Epiphanius you may see in the place before cited.
Martiall would hauehave vsus make a Kalender of Christian men, that refused to blesse them selues with the crosse, which were … infinite matter, seeing from the Apostles vntounto the Valentinian heretikes it is not read, that any such estimation was of the crosse, yt it should be any blessing or confirmation. Master Calfhils rule, that we must liue not after examples but after lawes, meaning, not followe what soeuer hath beene done by good men, but whatsoeuer was well done, according to the lawe of God, Martiall reiecteth vpō vaine, foolish, and friuolous reasons, as that some examples are to be followed, that the lawe serueth not for a iust man, that custome must be followed where lawe faileth, &c. Beside that he slaundereth Luther, as one that would hauehave all lawes and orders of Princes put awaye. Againe, whereas M. Calfhill sheweth that the fathers taught other things more oft & more earnestly then the vse of the crosse. As that it was a wickednesse to fast on Sonday, or to pray on our knees, beside the oblations on birthdayes, milke, and hony, with the communion giuen to infants, &c. Martiall answereth, these are abrogated by the church: this is not. But seing none of them hath ben in worse abuse then this custome of crossing, this ought to be abrogated of eueryevery church, as well as those. But whereas Martiall compareth the doctrine of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11. for couering or vncouering of men & womens heads, and the decree of ye Apostles for bloud and strangled, Act. 15. with those abrogated customes, he doth verye lewdly, for beside yt the authoritie of ye one is certeine, the other vncerteine, & of some forged: the doctrine of S. Paul as he there deliuereth it, is perpetuall, & the decree of the Apostles was neuer ment of them, but to be temporall, for auoiding offence of the Iewes. As touching the credit of the olde writers who had all their errors, we like well ye councell of Vincentius Lyrinensis, yt we should stil hauehave recourse for triall, to ye most ancient, in which we must needes accompt ye writings of the Apostles, both of moste antiquitie and of greatest authoritie. Wherefore seeing the manner of blessing with the crosse is not found either in the writings of the Apostles, or in the most auncient fathers, Iustinus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, by Vincentius councel, we may iustly accompt it for a corrupt custome, crept into the church, either by aemulation of heretikes, or in contention against the Paganes. But Martiall slaundereth vsus, and the Apollogie of the church of England, that the chiefe cause of our seperation from the Church of Rome, was the euill life of the gouernours thereof, and vainly spendeth time to proue out of Ciprian, Augustine, and Caluine, that for that cause wee ought not to separate our selues, whereas we are departed out of Babylon, not so much for the abhominable life thereof, as for the corrupt & false doctrine taught therein, by which it is shewed to be ye Synagogue of sathan, & not the church of Christ. And here Martiall hudleth vp a nomber of quotations for the authoritie of the Pope and of the church of Rome, which seeing they hauehave beene all often times answered, and by mee also in aunswere to D. Saunders rocke, it were folly here to stand vponupon thē.
But he will not be counted a falsifier of Tertullian, when of diuerse copyes and impressions he wilfully chooseth the worst, that he might wring it to his purpose, although the matter be not worth the strife about it. For Tertullians iudgement of tradition without scripture, in that place is corrupt: for Martiall him selfe confesseth, that a tradition vnwritten should be reasonable and agreable to the scriptures, and so he saith, the tradition of blessing with ye crosse is, because the Apostles by the holy ghoste deliuered it. But who shall assure vsus thereof? Tertullian & Basil are not sufficient warrant for so worthie a matter, seeing S. Paul leaueth it out of the vniuersall armour of God. But where M. Calfhill distinguisheth traditions into some necessary, as necessarily inferred of the scripture, some contrary to the worde, and some indifferent, Martial like an impudent Asse, calleth on him to shewe in what scripture, doctor, or councell he findeth this distinction of traditions. As though a man might not make a true distinction in disputation, but the same must be founde in so many wordes, in scripture, doctor, or councell, when he him selfe cannot deny, but ye distinction is true, & eueryevery part to be founde in ye scriptures, doctors & councels. But the examples please him not, for the couering of women, and their silence in the church are taught in expresse words of scripture, and therfore are not necessarily inferred of scripture. Therefore there is one lye, quod Martiall. Who would think such a block worthie of answere? which thinketh a trueth may not be inferred of the expresse words of scripture, when of nothing it can be better in ferred. Againe, he calleth it another lye, yt S. Paul proueth his tradition by ye scripture, for he bringeth no text nor sentence of scripture to proue yt women shuld be couered in the church. But Martiall doth not onelyonly belye M. Calfhill, but also slaunder S. Paul, seeing he alledgeth out of Genesis, both yt the man is the image & glory of God, & yt the woman was made for man.
The examples of the second sort, as Latine seruice, worshipping of images &c. Martiall will not allowe, but the scripture is plaine, to them that hauehave eyes, and be not like the images whome they worship.
Againe he liketh not that there should be any limitation in obseruing traditions of the church in things indifferent, as if cases of necessitie & of offence might not make a limitation without contempt of the churches authoritie. But he will learne, in which kinde of traditions we place the signing with ye crosse, & ye rest named by Basil. I aunswere, yt marking with the crosse in some respect, as it was first vsed of ye old fathers, is of the third kind, but as it is vsed of you Papists, for a blessing & sanctifying, of ye second kind. If it be tolde him, yt the fathers builded some strawe & wood as wel as gold & siluer, he saith those wordes were meant of maners & not of doctrine, wherin he sheweth himself a profound student in S. Pauls Epistles. Yet if ye fathers hauehave any priuate opinions, or yt some bastarde bookes be intituled to them, yet wil he follow ye rule of S. Basil, Hom. con. Sabel. Dominus, &c. Our Lord hath so taught, the Apostl… hauehave preached, the fathers hauehave obserued, the martirs hauehave confirmed, It shall suffice to say, I hauehave beene so taught? I would he would or could follow this councel, but he leaueth out al ye rest, & taketh but the taile: We hauehave been so taught.
But if he will hauehave vsus to allowe blessing with ye crosse, let him begin with the head, and shewe where our Lorde hath taught it, the Apostles preached it, and so forth continue his gradation to the end. But hitherto he hath beene hammering of tags to his two taglesse pointes, as M. Calfhil nameth them, and now he commeth to worke vponupon his third point: that a crosse was set vp in eueryevery place. And firste he goeth to worke with the authoritie of Martialis, one of the seuentie two disciples of Christ, which was as surely a disciple of Christ, as a kinsman of his. Of whose credite I hauehave spoken before, & therefore wil not here repeate it.
Wheras he is accused of falsifying of Athanasius, he coloureth the matter by following two or three corrupt prints, wilfully refusing the true edition & best reformed according to ye moste auncient written coppies. His leauing out of words material, which he cannot excuse by the print, he defendeth by his written coppie, and layeth the fault on the printer. Better a badd excuse then none at all, lawyers hauehave manye such shiftes.
But the place is Quaestion. 16. ad Antioch. Quare credentes omnes ad crucis imaginem cruces facimus, lanceae verò sanctae, aut arundinis, aut spongiae figuras nullas conficimus; cum tamen haec tam sint sancta quàm ipsa crux? Responsio. Figuram quidem Crucis ex duobus lignis compingentes conficimus, vt si quis infidelium id in nobis reprehendat, quod veneremur lignum, possimus duobus inter se disiunctis lignis, & crucis dirempta forma, ea tanquam in…ilia ligna reputare, & infideli persuadere▪ quod non colamus lignum, sed quòd crucis typum veneremur: in lancea verò aut spongia vel arundine nec facere hoc, nec ostendere possumus. Why do all wee beleeuers make crosses after the image of the crosse, but we make no figures of the holy speare, or of the reede, or of the sponge, whereas yet these are as holy as the crosse it selfe? The answere. Wee make in deede the figure of the crosse by putting two pieces of wood together, that if any of the infidels reprehende that in vsus that wee worship wood, wee may by seperating the two pieces of wood and breaking the forme of the crosse, accompt them as vnprofitable pieces of wood, and persuade the infidell, that wee worship not wood, but that wee worship the type of the crosse: but in the speare, or sponge, or reede, we can neither do not shewe this.
Here Martiall obserueth, that all Christian men made crosses, yet can he not proue that they did set these crosses in the church: but that they vsed them in other places, it appeareth by that they were made so, as the infidels seeing them, they might be taken asunder. But I will obserue, that seeing they made no images of the reede, sponge, speare, &c. they made no images of Christes passion, which the Papistes accompt so profitable.
Secondly, Martiall vrgeth, that they worshipped the type of the crosse, which Master Calfhill sayeth is not the figure, but the thing represented by ye crosse. And verily the Gentyles should hauehave as great cause to reprehend them for worshipping the shape of a creature▪ as for worshipping the creature it selfe. Wherefore, except Martiall will saye, the Christians made a fonde excuse, let him not play the foole so magnifically, in cauilling vppon Master Calfhils interpretation, when he cannot otherwise reasonably defende the authors meaning.
Finally, let Martiall remember that the speare, sponge, & reede, be as holy as the crosse it self, & therfore in respect of no holynesse thereof the crosse was made rather then the rest, but because the fourme thereof being easily broken in two stickes, the Gentyles might acknowledge, that the Christians made ye crosse neither for the wood, nor for ye fashion, but for a remēbrāce of Christ crucified, whō they worshiped.
From the crosse he digres…eth a while to ye marriage of vowed priests, complaining that Innocentius & Siricius, popes of Rome are slandered, where they are saide to take marriage for a satisfying of lustes of the flesh, where they speake only of the marriage of Priestes that had vowed to liue vnmarried, which is false, for they speake of Priestes that were married, lying with their owne wiues. Plurimos enim sacerdotes atque Leuitas post longa consecrationis suae tempora tam de coniugibus proprijs quàm etiam de …urpi coitu sobolem didicimus procreasse. For we hauehave learned that many Priestes of Christe and Leuites long time after their consecration hauehave begotten children, as well of their owne wiues, as of filthie copulation. Thus do they account both faultes alike. Againe, the reasons they bring, are such as concerne marriage generally: That they which be in the flesh can not please God &c. reade the Epistle of Syricius ad Himeriū Tarraconen▪ & Innocentius ad Victricium, which are all one word for word, concerning this matter. But where Martiall taketh vponupon him to charge vsus with a statute in force against the marriage of Priests in Englād, vnrepealed, he is miscōceiued. For we hauehave a clause of a statute in force, that all marriages lawfull by the lawes of God, shall be accounted lawfull by the lawes of the realme. So long therefore as the marriage of Priestes may be approued by the lawe of God, there is no daunger in the lawe of the realme. Concerning the filthie liues of the Popish Cleargie, it is needlesse to speake, being so well knowne in the world, & yet it is not their wicked life that separateth vsus from their Synagogue, but their hereticall doctrine. But returning againe to the crosse, he burdeneth M. Calfhil with a lye, bicause he saide, that Martial hauing named houses, markets, wildernesses, highwayes, seas, ships, Garments, parlors, walles, windowes, armor, &c. where the crosse should be, nameth not the Church, whereas a little before, he cited out of Chrysostome, that it was vsed in the holy table at ye holy mysteries. But Chrysostome saith not, that the crosse was erected, and set vp or painted in any Church, although he say, the figure thereof was vsed. Wherfore here is no lye proued. Touching the saying cited out of Augustine Serm. 130. de tempore, although the authoritie is not greatly to be regarded of those Sermons, yet admit it were Augustines in deede, M. Calfhil saith truly, that he speaketh neither of Martials materiall nor mysticall crosse, but of the death of Christ, and the crosse whereon he suffered, as al the discourse of that Sermon declareth: Before the crosse was a name of condemnation, nowe it is made a matter of honour: before is stoode in damnation of a curse, nowe it is set vp in occasion of saluation. This nowe Martiall would either craftily or impudently referre to Augustines time, which is spoken of the time of Christes passion, when the crosse was set vp in occasion of saluation, and not an idol therof in Augustines time.
He complaineth, that to an other place of Augustine, wherein mention is made of the signe of ye crosse, nothing is saide, where nothing needeth, when it is cō fessed, that the signe of the crosse was vsed in his time. And concerning Constantines crosse, we hauehave spoken alreadie sufficiently. To conclude therefore, here is nothing replied in this article, to proue that the Apostles and Fathers of the first Church did blesse them selues with the signe of the crosse, although the Fathers of latter time vsed to marke them selues with that signe, and counselled others so to doe. Neither is there any thing but the forged newe found Martiales Epistle, which is worse then nothing, to proue that the signe of the crosse in the first age of the Church was vsed by the Apostles, or their immediate successors before the dayes of Valentinus the heretike.
The sixt Article.
That diuers holy men and women got them little pieces of the crosse,Martial. and inclosed them in gold, &c.
It is confessed,Fulke. that diuers made great account to hauehave little pieces of the crosse, to inclose them in gold, and hang them about them, but their superstition is reproued both by Hieronyme and Chrysostome. To Hierome Martial aunswereth, that he reproued not the hauing of those pieces, but the confidence put in them, as the Pharisees did in their Phylacteries hanged vponupon their bodies, and not printing the lawe in their harts. Be it so, but what accounteth he the hauing of them? euen the strayning of a Gnat, Culicem liquantes & camelū deglu…ientes lib. 4. cap. 23. But in other places (saith Martial) he wisheth him selfe to kisse the wood of the crosse. Apol. 3. cont. Ruff. This was a small matter, and yet it was more then hauing a little piece of the crosse, for he speaketh of his visiting the places of the death, buriall, and birth of Christ, in which he might take more occasion of meditation vponupon the mysteries of our redemption. To Chrysostome, which counted it impietie in certaine priestes, that hanged Gospells about them, and pieces of the coat and haire of Christ, he maketh like answere, alledging out of his Demostr. ad Gentiles, that all the world desired to hauehave ye crosse, and eueryevery man coueted to hauehave a litle piece of it, & to inclose it in golde, &c. and whereas M. Calfhil aunswereth, that this was no praise of the parties, but a practise of the time▪ Martial replyeth, that it was a praise of the parties, repeating what Chrysostome doth write in commendation of the signe of the crosse &c. whereas in deed Chrysostome speaking of the matter in question, onelyonly sheweth what was the affection of Christians to the crosse, which was sometime the wood of condemnation. Which affection, although in some it were immoderate, yet Chrysostomes reason against ye Gentiles, should not turne him to perpetuall shame, (as Martial saith) for he proueth that Christ was God, in that he had wrought so great a conuersion vntounto the faith, that no man was nowe ashamed of the signe of the crosse, which before was a token of condemnation. To conclude, where Martiall abuseth the wordes of Christ: Haec oportet facere &c. These things ought to be done, the other not omtted, to proue that the fact of hauing these pieces of the crosse, and inclosing them in golde, was good, he must either bring the lawe of God, as the Pharisees did for tything of Mynt and Anise, or else we can not be persuaded that such estimation of pieces of wood is good and godly.