Two Popish Heretics Confuted, Rejoinder · Article 7
The seuenth Article.
That a crosse was borne at the singing or saying of the Letanie, &c.Martial.
That processions came not from Gentilitie to Christians,Fulke. Martial will proue, bicause processions came from tradition of ye Apostles, and that he proueth by a saying of Leo, What so euer is retained of the Church into custome of deuotion, commeth of the tradition of the Apostles, and doctrine of the holy Ghost. So is procession &c. but the minor is false, for the Church of Christ, for many hundreth yeares after Christe, knewe no processions. But if processions came from the Gentiles, saith Martial, shal we therefore condemne them? HaueHave we not ye liberal sciences, & many politike lawes from the Gentiles? as though there were one reason of religion, and politike laws or liberal artes: the one we are forbiddē to learne of the Gentiles,Deut. 12. the other being the giftes of God, we may take them euen from the Gentiles. Neither doth Augustine against the Manichees, whome Martial citeth lib. 20. cap. 23. Con. Faust. speake of any heathenish ceremonies receiued in Christian religion, but of such thinges▪ as we must hauehave common with them, like the sunne and the ayre, as meate, drinke, apparel, houses, &c.
Whether processions came from the Montanistes or Arrians, certaine it is, they came not from Christe nor his Apostles. Tertullian a Montanist maketh mē tion of certaine stations, but I suppose they were no processions but standings. The miracle of water turned into oyle, to serue for light in the Church, reported by Eusebius, I maruell to what end Martial bringeth foorth, and counteth that it was an hundreth yeares before the heresie of Arrius. The Letanie or supplication prescribed by the Councel of Ments, Martial saith the Papistes do obserue, for they ride not in the Rogationweeke, nor weare their copes. But how obserue they, that the Canon commaundeth them, to goe barefooted in sackcloth and ashes? The Councel of Orleans anno. 515. calleth these Letanies rogations, but of processiō or going abroad, it speaketh nothing. S. Ambrose in deed is ancienter then this Councel, but whether that Commentarie vponupon the Epistles, that goeth vnderunder his name, were of his writing, it is not agreed among learned men, at least wise, there be diuers additions, and the written copies varie. Besides that the worde wherevpon he buildeth dies pr…cessi…nis both in written and printed copies, is dies purgationis, the days of a womans purification, or if algates he wil hauehave it processionis, as some printed bookes hauehave, yet the very circumstance of the place wil proue that it is the dayes of a womans going foorth after her childbirth, and therfore no procession after the crosse.
And if Agapetus did not deuise processions first, as M. Calfhil saith; your owne Canon law lyeth, and not he, de cond. d. 1. Agapitus, as your author Garanza citeth it. But to come neare vntounto the article. Sozomenus lib. …. ca. 8. sheweth, yt the Arrians at Constantinople began a kind of processiō, with singing of Psalmes by course, which Iohn Chrysostome, fearing least any godly men should be seduced by them, tooke vp the same fashion, & so pasted the Arrians in number & processu & going forward. For siluer standards of the crosse, with burning waxe … went before them. This place sheweth, how godly men tooke vpfond ceremonies in emulation of heretikes. But nowe concerning these siluer standards in forme of ye crosse, which Socrates li. 6. ca. 8. sheweth, did serue to carie waxe candles or torches, burning vponupon them, to giuegive the people light in the night season, for then their processions were in the night, Martiall is as madde as a marche hare, that they should be counted no better then candlestickes or cresset staues: and yet when he hath prated what he can, for that principall vse they serued, although it may be that Chrysostome had some superstitious fantasie in the fourmes also of the crosse, which he deuised to be as ye standerds for the Catholike armie to followe: so the same crosse staues, serued both for candlestickes and standerdes: how soeuer it was, this procession differed much from our Popish processions, in whiche idols are carried about, and not as candlestickes, but candlesticks before them, with candels light in the day time, & not in the night.
His surmise, that the siluer crosses were set in the Church, because no place is mentioned where they left them when they came home, is foolish. They had common theaters and meeting places more meete for seting vp of such candlebearing crosses, then ye Churches. The quarrell of the foure lyes I passe ouer, let the Reader compare both their Bookes, and iudge whether Martiall hauehave handeled that storie with sinceritie.
The councell Elibertine forbadde candels to be lighted in the day time in the Churchyards, Ergo they forbadde them not on the Lordes table, quod Martial. But why then go you with torches and tapers into the Churchyarde, both in procession and at burialles. And seeing it was an Heathenishe custome to light them in Churches, as well as in Churchyardes, they which forbad the one would not hauehave alowed the other. But you light them not as Heathē men, of whom Lactantius speaketh, thinking God to be in darkenes, and to hauehave neede of light. But Ad signu… latriae demonstrandum to declare a signe of the high seruice that you owe to God, If it be so, why light you them to saintes? yea to images? the Gentils had as good excuses as you. Neuer thelesse you are determined to kepe your lightes still, as you hauehave record & witnes out of Eusebius, Athanasius, &c. In deede there is great reason, because they had candels light in the night you wil hauehave them in ye day: but of light I wish the reader to look more in my refutation of Rastals confutation, to ye 33. leafe of his book. After this foloweth a vain discourse, to proue yt we are heretiks, because we hauehave departed from the vnitie of the Church, from the Cleargie, from the bishop of Rome, &c. Al which is false, for we hauehave not departed from the church of Christ, which is ruled by his word, nor from the Christian Cleargie, nor from any godly Bishop of Rome, in any point in whiche he departed not from the trueth: but we are gone out of Babylon, we hauehave forsaken Antichriste, and all his merchantes, that made sale of mens soules: our prayer in a knowen tongue, our communion in both kindes, our reuerent administration of the Lordes supper, hauehave the Scripture for their warrant, and the primitiue Church for their witnesse.
His rayling vponupon Luther, I will not deale withall, God hath aduanced Luther as his poore witnesse aboue the Pope, the proud antichrist, which maketh all Papistes to spighte him. Concerning Iustinians constitution, for crosses to be born at the singing of the Letanie, it fauoureth of the corruption of his time. Such godly constitutions as he made, as well in Ecclesiasticall as politike matters, we esteeme as the good lawes of a forreyne prince are to be regarded.
And at length we come to Augustine the Monke, which cōming from Rome, did more hurte in corrupting true religion, then good in planting any religion: And whereas Martiall saith, if our religion came from Eleutherius, it came from Rome: although it were no shame to confesse it came from Rome in those purer times, yet Christian religion came to vsus euen from the Apostles, as witnesseth Gildas the Brittaine, being planted here in the reigne of Tiberius the Emperour. And as for Augustine, although the king Ethelbert & the people were well prepared before his comming, by the Queene and the bishop that attended vponupon her, yet according to his zeale, he tooke some paines to make the people receiue the doctrine of Christe, although in behauiour he was proude, as Galfride writeth, and Beda not altogether denieth, but that he seemed so, and in ceremonies superstitious. So that the doctrine of Christ which he taught, came from Ierusalem, from whence the Gospel was first preached, his errours and superstition came from Rome. That the bishops of the Brittaines refused, both his authoritie and ceremonies, it argueth that Christianitie was in this land not subiect to the see of Rome. If they refused to ioyne with Augustine in teaching the Saxons, it might be not for that they enuied their saluation which were their enemies, but because they would not consent to ioyne in y• worke with him, which sought to bring them into subiection. Concerning the cruel murder of the Monks of Bangor in Augustines quarrell, Galfride a Brittaine imputeth no small part of the fault to Augustine. Bede a Saxon would hauehave him cleare of it. But seeing the threatening of Augustine is agreed vponupon, and the slaughter followed, it is shrewde euidence against him. That Augustines crosse, & painted table differeth from that the Papistes nowe vse in procession, Martial counteth it not material, seeing afterward they receyued other kinde of images from Rome: and other kinde of Images were then vsed in Churches, which yet were harde for him to proue, for the Grecians to this day, receiue none but painted Images.
The pretence that Maister Calfhil saith, Augustine might hauehave to excuse him to feede the eyes of them that neuer heard of Christ, with ye image of his death, that lending their eares he might enstruct their hearts: Martiall wil not admit, or if he did admit it, that it followeth not, that they whiche hauehave not like pretence may not vse like example. Whereas Maister Calfhil doth neither absolutely affirme the pretence, nor allowe it to be good.
From this pretence he passeth into a defence of praiing to Saintes, to iustifie the Popishe Letanie, Virgine Marie pray for vsus, which he denyeth to be idolatrous, because some steppes, or shewe of invocation of Saints are found in some olde writers. And calleth for Scripture to proue it to be idolatrous, yet refuseth what soeuer Luther, Caluine, or the Magdeburges hauehave sayde against it. But by his fauour I wil vse one or two reasons out of scripture to prooue it to be idolatrous, to call vponupon the virgine Marie, or any creature. Saint Paule saith Rom. 10. ver. 14. How shall they call vponupon him in whom they hauehave not beleeued. By whiche it is euident, that none ought, nor can in true faith be called vponupon, but he in whom we beleeue, and it is idolatrie to beleeue in any but in God only, wherefore it is idolatrie to call vponupon Marie or any creature, but vppon God only.
Againe the Apostle 1. Tim. 2. ver. 5. saith there is but one God, and one Mediatour of God and men, the man Iesus Christe, where the Apostle speaketh not onelyonly of redemption, but of prayers, supplications, intercessions &c. which ouerthroweth your blinde distinction of mediatour, of intercession, and redemption.
For keeping the memorie of the deade, whiche Lactantius counteth superstition, you thinke your selues cleare of it, because Matthew, Peter, and Paule &c. are aliue in heauen. But you must remember, that Christ sayeth: Abraham, Isaak, and Iacob, were aliue to God, but in respect of men they are dead, and therefore those memories are not excused of superstition, according to Lactantius iudgement. Further you say, the note, that the materiall crosse is no ensigne of CHRISTE, hath simple proofe. But in deede your assertion, that it should be an ensigne of Christ, hath no proofe at all. The booke of Carolus magnus against images, you imagine to hauehave beene written by Caluine, or Illiricus, or some other late protestant: but of the credite and antiquitie thereof, I hauehave written againste Doctour Sanders booke of Images Cap. vltimo. Also concerning the second councel of Nice which Martiall citeth for procession with the crosse. Cap 15. or 14.
That God would not suffer the bones of Moses to be translated, least they should hauehave bene matter of idolatrie, he saith it is no cause, why translating of other Saintes bodies should not be permitted. Because God will hauehave merciemercy, vponupon whome he will hauehave merciemercy, and be gentle to whome it pleaseth him. Hath not the pottemaker power to make one vessel to honour, and another for reproch? May he not transferre Peters bones, and let Moses alone? May he not make Paules body to be honoured, and Iosephes obscured, Saint Stephans shrined, and Samuels interred, I thinke you will not deny?
These reasons to rehearse, it is a sufficient confutation of them: But for the highe estimation of reliques, Hierome is of his side, against Vigilantius, whome he calleth a famous heretike. And yet no man condemned him for an heretike but Hierome, who rather rayleth on him then reasoneth againste him. As for Eusebius, although he speake honourably of the bones of Polycarpus, which the Christians gathered and buried, as the partes of an holy martyrs body, yet he nameth not any worshipping of them, such as the Papistes vse. But Martial maketh much a do that Maister Calfhil alloweth the excuse which the Heathen men made, that they would not deliuer the body of Policarpus, least the Christians should leaue Christe, and beginne to worshippe him: saying, it was the instinct of the deuill, to denie his body &c. and so to say.
What then? Although they meant cruelly and slaunderously against the true Christians, which could neither forsake Christe nor worship any other. Yet the same answere might be well made to superstitious Papistes, who hauehave forsaken Christ and worship men, yea dead bones, and them often not of godly men, nor always of men. That Chrysostome was a great admirer of reliques, I shewed before, in so much that he would change the kingdome of heauen, for the chaine that Saint Paule was bound withall, wherein if he spake not excessiuely, let Martial follow him. We esteeme the kingdome of heauen more then al the reliques that euer were. And yet we alowe a reuerent laying vp of the bodies & bones of the Saints, so it be without superstition and idolatrie, as was meant by the ancient fathers, although the contrary followed of their too much zeale and carefulnesse of such small matters.
To conclude, you hauehave heard what can be saide for the antiquitie of processions, and bearing of the crosse before them: whether it be an Apostolike tradition, that was first deuised by Chrysostome in emulation of heretikes, let the readers iudge.