Two Popish Heretics Confuted, Rejoinder · Article 10
The tenth Article.
The adoration and worship of the crosse allowed by the ancient Fathers.Martiall.
Martial thinketh it not reason,Fulke. that he should proue the adoration of the crosse by some testimonie of scripture, bicause God hath not so tied him selfe to the written letter of the scripture, that nothing can be taken for trueth, which is not written in scripture. But God hath so tied vsus to the written letter of the scripture, that we are bound to beleeue nothing but that which may be proued thereby. The baptisme by heretikes, the baptisme of infants, the authoritie of the Epistle to the Hebrues, of Saint Iames and Iude, and of all the canonicall scriptures, hauehave proofe and approbation out of the holy scriputres, and are not receiued of vsus by the onelyonly tradition and authoritie of the church, which yet we doe not refuse, when it is warranted by the holy scriptures inspired of God.
The auncient Fathers, Athanasius, Chrysostome, &c. were not exempted from the infirmitie of men, that they could so order their termes, as no heretikes shuld take occasion of error by them, when euen the termes of holy scripture are often times abused by thē, cleane contrarie to the meaning of the spirite, by which they were written.
But Martial like a proud foole, disdaineth to be called to define adoration, bicause eueryevery terme is not necessarie to be defined. And yet I suppose he would claw his poll twise, or euer he could make a true definition of it, or a description either. At the least wise, seeing the word of adoration is taken so many wayes: but that he would walke vnderunder a cloud of ambiguitie, he shuld hauehave expressed what manner of adoration he doeth speake of. But he is content to take adoration for bowing downe, prostrating, putting off the cap, &c. which he thinketh may be done to a sensllesse image, as well as to the Queenes cloth of estate, her priuie seale, &c. as though there were no difference betweene ciuil reuerence, and religious worship and yet I weene no man doeth this honour to those senslesse things, although he shewe reuerence to the Prince at the sight of them. The second cōmandement, Exod. 20 he saith toucheth not Popish images, more then politike images, of Dragons, Eagles, Owles, &c, in armes or other pictures. So good a lawyer he is, that he can not interprete the lawe according to the matter wherevpon it is made, namely religiō, but fantasieth, that bicause images out of the vse of religion be not forbidden to be made by a lawe of religion, therefore they be not forbidden to be made, no not in the vse of religion.
The Prophets, he saith, cry out against the images of Gentiles, and by his leaue, against the images of the Israelites also. The image of the brasen Serpent was a figure of Christ, and yet the Prophets condemned, and Ezechias destroyed the worship of the brasen Serpent.
For the examination of the sentence of Ambrose de …bitu Theodosij, I referre the reader, to mine aunswere to D. Sander of images. cap. 13. or 12.
Augustine in Ioan. T. 36. sheweth, howe reuerently ye crosse was esteemed of the Romaines, that now malefactors were no more punished vponupon it, least it should be thought, they were honoured, if they s…ffered that kinde of death, which our sauiour Christe died. As among vsus, if rascall theeues should be beheaded at the Tower hill, where only honourable perso…ages vse to suffer, it might be saide, they were honoued with that kinde of execution. Herevpon Martial both foolishly and lewdly dreameth, that if theeues had bene put to death vponupon the crosse, the people were likely to hauehave honoured them for the crosses sake.
Hierome saith, that Paula worshipped lying before ye crosse, as though she had seene Christe hanging vponupon ye crosse, yet saith he not, that she worshipped the crosse. Ambrose saith of Helena, that when she found ye crosse she worshipped the king, & not the tree, for that is an heathenish error,De obis, & a vanitie of vngodly persons. wherfore if Hierome, or any other father should teach vsus to worship the crosse as an idol,Theod. we might well say to him, auoyd Sathan. But Martial, least he should seeme wearie of wrangling, scoffeth at M. Cal. for talking of a wodden tree, as though the matter of a thing, might not be named, but where there is difference of matter. Why say we then an earthly or fleshly man, if we may not say a woodden tree? by Martials philosophie, least men should thinke we talke of watrie and fishy men. I had not thought to hauehave named Martials terme of Gentlemens recognisances, of Dragon, Eagles, &c. vsed in this Article, but that he is so captious, to take exceptions to M. Cal. termes, himselfe being a lawier, to trip in a terme of law. That seruice and worship do so concur together, that the one can not be wtout the other, Martial granteth, although he think M. Cal. can bring no scripture, Doctor, nor Councel for it, when he bringeth the saying of Christ. Matt …. 4. But when he inferreth that we must serue God only, therfore we must worship God only. Mart. bringetl… instāce of ciuil seruice, & worship of parents. when our sauiour Christ speaketh onelyonly of religious worship, which the diuell required to be giuen him, not as God, but as the distributer of all the kingdomes of the world, vnderunder God.
That Angels are inferiour to Christ, which worship him,Heb. 1. and are not worshipped againe, Martiall saith, it is an addition vntounto S. Paul, bicause in all that Epistle we are not forbidden to worship Angels, but where he proued before, that God only is to be worshipped, and the Angel refuseth to be worshipped of Iohn. Apoc. 19. vers. 10. 22. vers. 8. who was not so madd to worship him as God, but as an excellent creature: what addition can this be to the sense and meaning of the Apostle, especially when he addeth immediately, that they are all ministring spirites, appointed to minister for them that shall inherite saluation. They are appointed of God to serue, they are not set vppe to be serued and worshipped. Their honour and delight is, that God only may be serued and honoured.
Out of Damascen, he excuseth their worshipping of the crosse, for that they worship not ye matter, as wood, copper, &c. but the figure, as if it were lesle idolatrie to worship an accident, then a substance.
The honour which Peter refused to receiue of Cornelius, was not such as became the minister of God, and therefore was reproued by Peter, without counterfetting of humilitie, the other examples that Martiall bringeth of ciuill worship done vntounto Dauid by Abigail, and Nathan, be cleane out of the purpose.
Concerning the worship of Angels, I hauehave spoken immediately before. Martial slaundereth S. Iohn, that he would hauehave worshipped the Angles as God. The conclusion of this argument he thinketh worthy to be hissed at, Angels may not be worshipped, ergo, much lesle the crosse.
What shall we say to such a Chrysippus, as alloweth not the argument a maioribus? The obiection of the Cherubims, ye brasen serpent, ye oxen, and other images in the Temple, you shall finde answered, cap. 5. or. 4. of my confutation of D. Sanders booke of images.
The seuenteene authorities brought by M. Calfhil, against the worshipping of images, Martiall will aunswere if he can, and first he denieth, that Clemens speaketh of crosses, crucifixe, &c. but of the images of the Gentiles. In deede in his dayes the true Christians had no such images, that he should speake of them. But consider his reasons, that he maketh against the worshipping of heathenish images, and they serue also to condemne the worship of Popish images. The fables of the image of Christes face, that he gaue to Veronica, and sent to Algarus, is good draffe for such swine, as delight in idolatrie. But Martiall thinketh, that as our eares call vponupon vsus to bowe our knees at the name of Iesus, so doe the eyes at the sight of the crucifixe: but he must vnderstand, that we worship not the sound of the name of Iesus, rebounding in the ayre, but the power, the maiestie and authoritie of Iesus, we acknowledge and honor, not called vponupon by the sound of the name of Iesus, but by the voyc… of the Gospell, to which the idol of the crucifixe hath no resemblance, neither is it a lawfull meane, to strirre vp our remembrance, bicause it is forbidden of God.
Where Saint Paul saith, that Christ was described or painted vntounto the Galathians, we must either say, that the passion of Christ was painted in a table, or else they caried the image of the crosse of Christ rent and torne in their mindes. If they might carrie an image in their mindes, why might they not hauehave it faire painted in a table, speake Master Calfe? aunswer if you can? O mightie Martiall, withdrawe your grimme countenance a while, and giuegive him leaue to gather his wittes together. First he saith, that Saint Paul speaketh of neither of both your images, but of the effect and fruite of the death of Christe, which was so liuely described before them, that they ought not to hauehave sought any thing more to the sufficiencie of his redemption, and their saluation. Secondly, although the sense of hearing be appointed of God, Rom. 10. to instruct faith, yet he findeth not the sense of seeing, and especially of images, which God hath forbidden, admitted to be a mouer to Christian deuotion or worship of God: and therefore there is no like reason, that as the storie may be caried in remembrance, so the image may be painted and set vp in the Church to be worshipped.
The iniunction of kneeling at the communion, intendeth no worship of the breade and wine, more then of the table, the cuppe, the booke, the deske, the wall, &c. before which the people kneele, and therefore it hath nothing like to your kneeling before the crosse, which is not only before it, but also to it, to worship it.
But you thinke you hauehave an argument to choake vsus, of the ceremonie of swearing vponupon a booke, seeing swearing is a kinde of adoration. But syr, we sweare not by the booke, as you Papistes doe, we call God only to witnesse, the booke is but an externall indifferent ceremonie, and that rather ciuill then ecclesiasticall, whereas adoration of GOD by images, is prohibited by Gods lawe. Againe, we giuegive no honour at all to the booke, as you do to your images.
That Clemens alloweth the honour giuen to man, as to the image of GOD, we allowe very well, bicause man is a true image of GOD, your blockes and stockes be all false and counterfet images.
To Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus and Tertullian he maketh the same aunswere, that they speake only of heathenish images. The like he might say, where they speake against adulteries, that they speake of the adulteries of the Heathen, and not of Christians. And the same to Cyprian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, & Athanasius, bringing instance of the ciuill reuerence done to the Princes seate, and to the Prince him selfe. And wheras Arnobius saith expresly, & absolutely we worship no crosses, he expoundeth it, we worship them not as Gods. Such expositions may auoyde all authorities. The Gentiles which knewe the Christians worshipped but one God, did not obiuct worshipping of crosses vntounto them as Gods.
Against the authoritie of Lactar tius, he bringeth in a verse falsely ascribed vntounto him: Flecte genu lignumque crucis venerabile adora, Bow the knee, and adore the venerable wood of the crosse. If Martial allowe this verse for authenticall authoritie, howe will he iustifie that he saide before, they worshipped not the wood, stone, metal of the crosse, but the figure or signe of it? Against Athanasius he obtrudeth that counterfet sermon of the image of Christe in Berisus, and once againe vrgeth his forged question 39. ad Antiochū, which is quest. 16. as we hauehave set it downe at large Articl. 5. hauing in it no such wordes as he c…teth: Crucis figuram ex duobus lignis componentes adoramus. We making a figure of the crosse of two pieces of wood, doe ador… it. To Epiphanius, he aunswereth, that he speaketh onelyonly against women, which offered sacrifice to ye vi…gine Marie, whereas neither it was lawfull that women should offer sacrifice, nor that Marie should be made a God. But in deede Epiphanius speaketh against the adoration of dead men, by images. Et mortui qui lem sunt qui adorantur &c. And they truely which are worshipped are deade, but they bring in their images to be worshipped whiche neuer liued, for they can not be dead which neuer liued. He would hauehave Marie to be honoured, but not with worshipping her image, for that were idolattie. Martial hath two strong collections: if a woman may not sacrifice, ergo, she may not be head of the Church, as though it were necessarie, that the chiefe gouernour of ye church should do sacrifice. The other, that women may not offer externall sacrifice, ergo, there is an external sacrifice that men may offer. As good as this, a woman may not circumcise, therefore circumcision is in vse to be done by men.
To be short, Epiphanius calleth the heresie of ye Collyridiaus that sacrificed to the virgine Marie Haeresis si…lachrifica an image making heresie. But least Martial should seeme to be beaten cleane away from Epiphanius, he citeth him De vitis prophet, alledging a prophecie of Hieremie of the second comming of Christ, which shold be Quando gentes vniuersae ligno supplicabunt, when all nations shall make their supplications to woode. Heere is either Martials signe of the crosse, or an Heathenish errour commanded by the prophetes, he saith. But if he will boaste of the authoritie of the ancient Epiphanius, he must bring better stuffe then this fragment De vita & inter. Proph. Which following so many Iewish fables, argueth the later Epiphanius the patrone of Images to be ye author, rather then ye elder of Cyprus. For this prophecie of Hieremie, euen as the fable of the Arke swallowed of a stone, &c. sauoureth of Iewish vanitie: And yet if we should admit it as authenticall and true, the sense should rather be, yt Christ shal come when al nations shal be idolaters or wood-worshippers, then when al nations should worship the signe of the crosse, as Martiall supposeth. For Christ at his second comming shall scarse finde faith. Therefore infidelitie possessing the greatest part of ye world, it is more like all nations should worship woodden idols, then Christ by honoring the signe of his crosse.
To Ambrose, denying that Helena worshipped the wodde of the crosse, he opposeth a forged saying of Ambrose, cited in the second councell of Nice, where lying, forging, and false worshipping, did beare all the sway. Concerning the true testimonie of Ambrose, reade more in mine answere to D. Sanders booke of images Cap. 13. or 12.
To Hierome, not admitting ye ciuil honor vsed to be giuen to the pillers & images of the Emperours, much lesse adoration of images in religion, he oppeseth his saying in Psalm. 98. affirming that adoration of the crosse is allowed by him, whereas that commentary by learned and indifferent iudges, Erasmus & Amerbachius, is proued by many arguments to be none of Hieronymes writing, but of one of much later time.
Thus hath Martial against the true testimonies of the fathers, nothing to oppose, but their counterfetted authorities, and false inscribed writings. Concerning Hieronymes adoration of the mangar and incunabula the cradle of Christ, which Martial so often called the swathling clothes, I hauehave aunswered before, yt he meaneth no such adoration, as the Papistes giuegive vntounto their images, but a reuerent estimatiō, as of an ancient, holy monumēt, wherin yet I wil not altogether excuse Hierome of superstitious affectiō, as I wil not charge him wt idolatrie. For Chrysostomes iudgment of worshipping ye crosse, I refer the reader as before, to Cap. 13. or 12. of mine answere to D. Sand. booke of images. To Claudius bishop of Taurino, that in al his Dioces forbad the worship of the crosse, he aunswereth, Alphonsus de Cactro counteth him for an heretike, & Ionas bishop of Orleans writeth against him. In deed Ionas writeth against his ouerthrowing of Images, but he writeth al so against ye adoration of Images. His words are these: Lib. 1. De cultu imagin. Claudius praesul Ecclesiae Taurinensis, &c. Claudius bishop of the Church of Taurine sawe his flocke (among other things which it did worthy of reformation) to be giuen to the superstitious, yea the pernicious worshipping of images, of which disease, some of those partes are sicke of an olde rooted custome, &c. So that not onelyonly Claudius, but also Ionas, was directly contrary to this tenth article.
Touching the brabling distinction of Latria & Daulia, I referre the reader to mine answere to Doctor Sanders booke of images, Cap. 6. or 5. as also for that noble argument that followeth, whereby he woulde proue that Papistes cannot commit idolatrie.
That M. Calfhill affirmeth outward profession to be necessary for eueryevery Christian man. Martiall saith, he condemneth his doctrine of onelyonly faith iustifying. Ver…ly, a clubb is more meere then an argument, to beate it into such an Asses head, that when we teache that onelyonly faith doth iustifie, we say not, that God requireth nothing of a Christian man but faith onelyonly. Againe, who would vouch safe to answere his quarreling of true faith, without confession? The ruler… beleeued, but did not confesse, Iohn. 12. here was faith (quod Martiall) but no confession. But who will graunt that here was a true iustifying faith? Likewise this argument: There is a corporall seruice of outwarde gesture due to God, therefore it is no idolatrie to kneele before an image. And againe: Protestants kneele before images in glasse windowes, and holde vp their handes at Paules crosse, therefore they defile their bodies with sacrilege. And if they excuse themselues by their good intent, the same will serue the Papistes which adore the image for that it representeth Christ or his saintes.
But protestants adore no images, with any intent, thou foolish aduocate of Idolaters, no more then Martiall doth reuerence to a dogg, when he putteth of his cap, or maketh curtesie in any house, where a dogge is before him. And verily he sayeth, a man may as well be suspected for idolatrie, if he bowe before any visible creature, as if he kneele before an image. But not so probably, as Martiall may be suspected to be out of his wits, when he maketh such comparisons. The Iewes were not onelyonly suspected, but also affirmed by the Gentyles to worship the clowdes & the power of heauen, because in prayer they looked vp to heauen: Qui puras nubes, & Coeli …men adorant, sayeth the Poet of them. Wherefore by Martials comparison, they might as wel hauehave prayed before images. And where he sayeth, that Protestants condemne outward things except hattes, beardes, barrell breeches, &c. he sheweth his vanitie. Our iudgement concerning outwarde things that serue for order and comlinesse (being not defyled with idolatrie and superstition) is sufficiently knowen. What wee teach of fasting & praying, vowing, &c. it were superfluous here to repeate, when publike testimonies of our doctrine are daily giuen, both in preaching and writing. And surely I am to blame y• vouchsaue such vaine calumniating of any mention. That not to bowe their knee to Baal is not a peculiar note of Gods seruants, because other things are required in Gods seruants, then to be free from idolatrie, it is a foolish and more then childish quarrell. For in the days of Elyas, that was a peculiar note to discern them from idolaters, whom God had preserued both from yelding to idolatrie in hart, & also from d…ssembling with outwarde gesture. But Martiall would learne whether M. Calfhill kneeling downe before his father to aske him blessing, did not commit idolatrie. How often shall I tell him: he is an Asse that cannot make a difference betweene ciuill honour and religious worship. And once againe he must be answered, why the people are suffered to sweare vpō a book, with their cappes in their hands, rather then to kneele before the crosse in doing of their adoration to God. If he will be answered, I will tell him againe, partly because it is against ciuil honestie that the people should stande couered before the Iudge, partly because they sweare by the name of God, whome they ought to reuerence. But kneeling before a crosse to worship it, is manifest idolatrie, and expressely forbidden by the lawe of God. Thou sh…lt not bowe downe to them nor worship them. The people are not allowed to put off their cappes to the booke, neither yet to sweare by the booke.
When Martiall can proue, that it is lawfull for Christians to worship images, then we will graunt, it is vncharitable to iudge them idolaters that kneele before them.
But he will not graunt the crosse to be nothing in that sense that Saint Paul sayeth, an Idoll is nothing, because it is a representation of a thing that was, by this reason the image of Iupiter, Hercules, Romulus, which were men sometime, were no idols. The image of the Sunne, of an Oxe, an Ape, a Catt, &c. worshipped of the Egyptians, were no Idols, neither was the worshipping of them idolatrie. The questions to be propounded in the Chauncery, I leaue to Martiall to propounde him selfe. But where he sayeth, that no euidence of any idolatrous fact in worshipping the crosse can be shewed in true Christians, I agree with him: but in Papistes, if he meane them, great euidence. Who went a Pilgrimage to the roodes of Bostone, Douercourt and Chester, were they not Papistes? who made the roodes to sweate, to bleede, and to smell sweete as D. Reade did with his roode of Becclys, were they not Papistes? Finally, who sayeth & singeth to the Crucifix? Aue rex noster, &c. All haile our King: All haile, O crosse our onelyonly hope, &c. I doubt not but the countrey of Christian men, wil iudge this as good euidence for pulling downe the crosse, as Ezechias had for destroying the brazen Serpent.
It is Martials poore iudgement, when you see men praying, they be Christian men: therefore they serue God in spirite and truth: but afterward, he restrayneth it to men that were baptised in Christ. Yet may they be heretikes, and therfore no true worshippers of God. But y• which he spake in way of humilitie, he will now say stoutly: Sir when you see men, that is to say men that are baptised, men that beleeue in God, praying yea before an image, and holding vp their handes, and knocking their breastes, it is a good consequent to say they be Christian men. Ergo they serue God in spirite and trueth: and we may not iudge the contrary. This argument holdeth of the place of stoutnesse. For other consequence there is none in it, nor yet wittie conueyance. For first when I see men, I must say, they be men that are baptised, and beleeue in God. Whereas by sight I can not perceiue that they are baptised, & yet if I know that they be baptised, I can not tell whether they beleeue in God, as Christians, or as heretikes, or whether they be hipocrites without faith. How shal I then iudge them to be Christian men? Finally when I see them do an open acte, contrary to Christian profession, yet by Martials diuinitie, I may not iudge, but that they be good Christians, and worship God in spirite and truth. Euen as by his Canon law, I am taught, that if I see a prieste embrasing of a woman, I must iudge he doeth it for no harme, but to blesse her. To be shorte. Martials good consequent, wil make him confesse, that al the protestantes that holde vp their hands at Paules crosse, and say Amen when the preacher her sayeth, God confound the Papistes, (whereat he scoffeth) be Christian men, and worship God in spirite and trueth. As for their adoration of the crosse, he saith standeth as well with the glorie of God, as our kneeling at the communion, putting off our cappes to the cloth of estate, to the Princes letters, bowing to the Princes person, kissing of the booke, &c. So that with him thinges by God expressely forbidden, stande as well with his glorie, as things by him commanded and permitted. In the end, complayning that Maister Calfhill hath not answered him to thirtie places out of the auncient writers, whereof let the Readers when they hauehave compared, iudge, he glorieth that his rayling & slanderous conclusion, is not dealt withall, but by silence, which silence he taketh for a confession: but in deede it is a sufficient confutation of such lies and slaunders as hauehave no colour of trueth in them. Our Sauiour Christ being called a Samaritan made none answer to it. Socrates an Heathen man, kept silence when a varlet railed on him, wherfore silence in such case as this, is neither a confession, nor a conuiction. To conclude, I will not altogether refuse, as Maister Calfhil doth, to deale with So …ewde an aduersarie as Martiall is, but I would wishe that the Papistes for their credites sake, would henceforward set forth a better champion for their causes, or else helpe him with better weapons to fight in their quarrel. For in this reply he doth nothing in a maner, but either conster like an Vsher, or quarrell like a dogbolt Lawier.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Fulke, Two Popish Heretics Confuted (1580)