A Defense of the Catholic Faith, Book 2 · Article 20
ARTICLE XX. Of the Croſſe.
The KINGS Confeſſion.BVt Chriſts Croſſe muſt hauehave a particular priuiledge (ſay they) and bee worſhipped ratione contactus. But firſt wee muſt know what kinde of touching of Chriſts body drew a vertue from it, whether eueryevery touching, or onelyonly touching by faith? That eueryevery touching of his body drew not vertue from it, is more then manifeſt. When the Woman in the bloody fluxe touched him, ſhe was healed by her faith: Luke 8.But Peter then tolde him that a crowde and throng of many people then touched him, and yet none of them receiued any benefit or vertue from him. Iudas touched him many and many a time, beſides his laſt kiſſe▪ ſo did the villaines that Buffeted and Crucified him, and yet I may ſafely pronounce them accurſed, that would beſtow any worſhip vponupon their reliques: yea we cannot denie but the land of Canaan it ſelfe (whereupon our Lord did dayly tread) is ſo viſibly accurſed, being gouerned by faithleſſe Turkes, full of innumerable Sects of hereticall Chriſtians, and the very fertilitie thereof ſo farre degenerated into a pitifull ſterilitie, as he muſt bee accurſed that accounteth it bleſſed. Nay, when a certaine Woman bleſſed the belly that bare Chriſt, and the breaſts that gaue him ſucke: Luke 11.28.Nay rather (ſaith he) Bleſsed are thoſe that heare the Word of God and keepe it. Except then they could firſt prooue that Chriſt had reſolued to bleſse that tree of the Croſse, wherevpon he was nayled, they can neuer prooue that his touching it could giuegive it any vertue. And put the caſe it bad a vertue of doing Miracles, as Peters ſhadow had, yet doeth it not follow, that it is lawfull to worſhip it, which Peter would neuer accept of. Surely the Prophets that in ſo many places curſe thoſe that worſhip Images, that hauehave eyes and ſee not, that hauehave eares and heare not, would much more hauehave curſed them that worſhip a piece of a ſticke, that hath not ſo much as any reſemblance or repreſentation of eyes or eares.
To this M. Coeffeteau oppoſeth not the commandement of God,Coëff. fol. 65. but the authority of Chryſoſtome in his Sermon of the adoration of the Croſſe, who ſaith, The Croſſe & his picture ought to be worſhipped. In like manner Prudentius the Poet, and Paulinus Biſhop of Nola, and Ambroſe, who ſpeake of the worſhipping of the Croſſe, that Iudas kiſſe, or the touching of the executioners, and the touch of the Croſſe is not al one becauſe the mouth of the one, and the hands of the other were liuing mem-bers of thoſe Reprobates, that committed the moſt deteſtable crime in the world; but the Croſſe was a dead thing, and a harmeleſſe inſtrument of our Sauiors death: that this worſhip is not done to the wood, but to him that was faſtened thereunto, and ſanctified it by his touching of it: & again, that the repreſentation of the cheife miſtery of our ſaluatiō doth make it venerable: which cannot be ſaid of the land of Canaan, becauſe it was no particular inſtrument of our ſaluation.
The Doctor is not willing to leaue his good cuſtome of paying vsus with falſehoods. Anſwere. For Chryſoſtomes Sermon of the adoration of the Croſſe, wch ſaith that the Croſſe, & the effigies thereof are to be worſhipped is ſuppoſitious, and not found in Greek among Chryſoſtomes works.Gretſeri notae in orationes de cruce, pag. 601. Hanc orationem neque in Auguſtana bibliotheca reperimus, neque aliunde nanciſci potuimus. Ioachimus Perionius hath ſet forth in Greeke and Latine, what himſelfe pleaſed: but Gretſer a Ieſuit, who hath very lately inſerted it among other orations that ſpeake of the Croſſe, ſaith that he hath made diligent ſearch for the manuſcripts of Chryſoſt. in the Libraries at Bauaria, and Auſburg; and that the hath neither found it there, nor any where elſe.
Coeffeteau addeth, that Prudentius writing againſt Simmachus ſaith, that the Chriſtians bowed their knees before the Croſſe to worſhip it: and yet this is falſe. He could not alleage the wordes, but the verſes of Prudentius are theſe.
—Tunc ille Senatus
Militiae vltricis titulum, Chriſti que verendum
Nomen adorauit, quod collucebat in armis.
Which ſounds in Engliſh to this ſenſe,
Then did the Senate graue adore
The title of Chriſtes name diuine,
Which the reuengefull Armie bore,
And did in glorious banner ſhine.
The meaning is that the Senate hauing ſeene a Romane banner, which they called Labarum, whervpon the name of Chriſt was written for an inſcription in this forme ☧ did worſhip this title, and the venerable name of Chriſt. But of adoring the croſſe he makes no mention.
He further ſaith, that S. Ambroſe in the Oration made vponupon the death of Theodoſius, ſpeaking of Helena that put one of the nayles of the Croſſe in Conſtantines crown,Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite regum leuauit, vt crux Chriſti in r…gibus adoretur. ſaith, that ſhe did wiſely in aduancing the Croſſe aboue the heads of Kings, that in Kings the Croſſe of Chriſt might be worſhipped. Let vsus here reſolue that this Oration, as alſo others of the third Tome, be adiudged counterfeit by Eraſmus a man of good iudgement in the reading of the Fathers. And indeed it is not credible that S. Ambroſe ſhould ſpeake ſo ridiculouſly, as to*Illum qui ſicut Scarabeus clamauit vt perſecutori… ſ…is peccata donaret. compare Chriſt Ieſus crying on the Croſſe to the beetle flie a baſe creature, and that crieth not, as the Author of this Oration doth: yet, beeing graunted to be true, doth Coeffeteau ſtill ſhew himſelfe a falſifier both of the words, & of the ſenſe: of the ſenſe: for theſe words, Vt crux Chriſti in regibus adoretur doe ſignifie, that Kings being adored, the croſſe by that means might be adored: whereby it is euident that he ſpeakes of a ciuill adoration, becauſe he makes it one with that which is performed vntounto Kings: now the queſtion is here of religious worſhip. Secondly, Coeffeteau doth curtaile this place with like falſhood, ſuppreſſing the words following, which doe explane what is meant by the Croſſe. This is no arrogance (ſaith he) but piety, when it hath reference to the redemption: he ſpeakes then of worſhipping the redemption, and not a woodden Croſſe. In like manner hath Coeffeteau diſſembled the precedent words, which are wonderfull plaine: Helena adored the King, Helena regem adorauit nō lignū vti que , quia Gen tilis eſt hic error & vanitas impiorum.and not the wood, for this is a heatheniſh error, and a vanity of the vngodly. But ſhee worſhipped him that was hanged on the wood. This licentious falſifying, and clipping of the Fathers is horrible: if our Doctor durſt falſifie the Scripture with like liberty, hee would queſtionleſſe alleadge ſome paſſages therehence.
Concerning Paulinus who liued in the fifth age,Crux enim piſius columna eſt generis humani. In ipſa columna aedificata eſt domus eius. Ego crucem dico, non lignum ſed paſſionem. and al others that ſpeake of honouring, or reuerencing the Croſſe, yea or if there be any that ſpeake of adoring it, S. Ierome vponupon the 95. Pſalme giues vsus a generall rule, whereby to expound ſuch places. His Croſse (ſaith he) is the Pillar of mankind, vponupon this Pillar his houſe is built: now by the Croſſe I vnderſtand not the wood, but the paſsion. The ſame Father vponupon S. Matthew, lib. 4. cap. 23. complaining that certaine women carried about them ſome wordes of the Goſpell written in little rolls of parchment, and ſuperſtitiouſly worſhipped the Croſſe. Some odde huswiues among vsus (ſaith hee) vſe to doe this with little Goſpells, Hoc apud nos ſuperſtitioſae quaedā mulierculae factitant in paruulis Euangelijs & in crucis ligno & iſtiuſmodi rebus (quae habēt quidem zelum Dei ſed non ſecundum ſcientiam.)and the wood of the Croſſe, & ſuch like things, which hauehave the zeale of God, but not according to knowledge. What would he hauehave ſaid, if he had ſeene any to ſpeake to a peece of wood, and to ſalute the Croſſe, as if it vnderſtood them? ſaying to it, Aue lignum triumphale, haile triumphant wood. And, O aue crux, ſpes vnica, auge pijs iuſticiam, reiſ que dona veniam. Haile Croſſe our onelyonly hope, encreaſe righteouſneſſe vntounto the faithfull, and pardon the ſinfull: as our aduerſaries doe.
For I aske to whom they ſpeake: doe they ſpeake to Ieſus Chriſt? why, he is neither called wood, nor Croſſe: doe they ſpeake to the Croſſe: why, that vnderſtands them not: do they ſpeak to the Croſſe in honour of Chriſt? or doe they worſhippe the Croſſe, with a relatiue adoration, hauing reference vntounto Ieſus Chriſt? then ſhould that whereunto they ſpeak in honour of Chriſt, vnderſtand what they ſay; and he that ſhould ſpeake to the timber of the Kings chaire in honour of the King, would be taken for a foole: neither ſhould the King bee more honoured thereby: and to giuegive a relatiue worſhip vntounto the Croſſe, is to worſhip the Croſſe: we may not worſhip a dead thing, to honor Chriſt thereby; nor muſt wee honour God, by tranſgreſſing his commanndement.
Now our aduerſaries tell vsus of twoſorts of Croſſes which muſt bee worſhipped: one is the true Croſſe, which neuertheleſſe is not now a Croſſe, becauſe it hath beene cut out into little peeces: the other is the image of the Croſſe, ſuch as are the common Croſſes.
Concerning the true Croſſe, the Author of the Catechiſmes falſey aſcribed vntounto Cyrill of Ieruſalem, in the fourth Catechiſme ſaith,foreign. that this wood is ſo growne, and multiplyed, that in a manner, the whole conntrey is full of it: I thinke one may build a Cittie of it: for as time and experience makes menwiſer, ſo hauehave the Chriſtians at length thought good to hauehave ſome little chip of the true Croſſe in their cheſt, or about their necke, as a holy defenſatiue againſt deuills. Whence it appeares, that the Apoſtles, and the Chriſtians in their time, that might each of them hauehave had a cut of the true Croſſe, and yet left it whole and vntouched, without any ſearch for it, for 300. yeares together, were either more barren in invention, or colder in deuotion. In the yeare 1239 Iohn naming himſelfe King of Ieruſalem, who was afterward Emperour of Conſtantinople, beeing hunger-ſtarued for want of money, began a traffique of reliques, and ſolde great ſtore of them to the weſterne Princes, that were not ſo ſubtile as himſelfe: he ſold the Crowne of thornes to King Lewes the ninth, and the true Croſſe to the Venetians, which the ſaid King Lewes bought of them againe, making them gainers halfe in halfe: he bought alſo the ſponge wherewith they offered drinke vntounto Chriſt; and the yron of the ſpeare, wherewith S. Longis pierced his ſide, and recouered his ſight thereby. The holy Chappell of the Pallace, was purpoſely built for the reſeruation and the adoration of theſe reliques.
Touching the worſhippe and adoration of this Croſſe,Thomas 3. parte. Quaeſt. 25. Art. 3. Alexander. 3. part. quaeſt. 30. art. vltimo. Caietanus in Thomā 3. part. quaeſt. 25. art. 3. Bonauentura. Marcellus Almain Carthuſianus, Capreolus in 3. diſt. 9. Henr. Quod libetico 10. q. 6. Namclantus in Epiſt. ad Rom. cap. 1. I finde that all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, (Bellarmine, and ſome inferiour Ieſuites excepted) do agree, that the true Croſſe ought to be worſhipped with Latria, that is to ſay, with the very worſhip which is giuen to God himſelfe. An abhominable Doctrine, giuing to a dead creature as great worſhip as vntounto the high God; which cannot be excuſed, that this worſhip of the Croſſe hath relation vntounto God, or is referred vntounto Ieſus Chriſt: for to adore Ieſus Chriſt, and to adore the Croſſe in honour of Ieſus Chriſt, muſt needes bee two different adorations, We muſt not in honour of God, adore the creature with honour equalling the worſhip of God; for in ſeeking thus to honour God, we ſhall diſhonour him; reproach him by ſuch worſhip; by ſuch reſpect diſreſpect him; neglect him by ſuch ſeruice: in a word, this is to make ex oppoſito appoſitum, to deſcend in clyming, and to get heate by freezing. Beſides, what honour, or reſpect ſoeuer you may ſhew vntounto the King, it can neuer be made good, that any can honour him the more, by giuing like reuerence to his chaire, or his cloke: the chief point is, that if ſuch worſhip of the Croſſe be lawfull, then hath God commaunded it. For we may not adore any thing, but what he hath commaunded vsus to adore: and here are our aduerſaries tongue-tied, and alleadge no one word of Gods commaundement.
This is the reaſon why Cardinall Bellarmine thinkes it better to ſay, that the Croſſe ought to be worſhipped with an inferiour adoration: wherein he plainely confeſſeth, that the adoration of the Croſſe differs from the adoration of Ieſus Chriſt, in that it is inferiour: and ſo his meaning is that the dead creature be worſhipped in it ſelfe, and with a differing worſhippe from that by which Chriſt is worſhipped, Secondly, he doth thereby confound the vnderſtanding of the poore people, who when they fall downe before the Croſſe, thinke of performing no more then one worſhip: but Bellarmine will hauehave them to performe two ſeruices, one to Chriſt, and the other to the Croſſe, and in the one inſtant to cut their deuotion in two peeces, deuiding their thoughts betweene two kindes of worſhips. It were extreamely abſurd to hope, that hee, or any other ſhould produce any commandement of God touching this religious worſhip ſubordinate to the worſhip of Chriſt; without ſaying, that the people adoring a piece of the Croſſe, muſt aſſuredly beleeue that it is a piece of the true Croſſe, and that it is not ſuppoſitious: whereof notwithſtanding there can be no aſſurance.
For the other kinde of Croſſe, which is the Image of the Croſſe in woode, or ſiluer, the Church of Rome doth worſhip that alſo: and at the eleuation thereof, they ſay, Ecce crux, adoremus. And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine in the thirtieth chapter of his booke of Images, ſpeakes thus: We worſhip all Croſſes, §. Ad quartum. Omnes cruces adoramus quia omnes ſunt imagines verae crucis.becauſe they are all Images of the true Croſſe: yea the bare Croſſes without a Crucifix. We worſhip (ſaith he) the Croſſe, yea without Chriſt crucified.
All which is a Medley of abſurdity with impiety. For none worſhippeth the Image of the Croſſe with like worſhippe, as hee doth the true Croſſe: and if the true Croſſe be to be adored with a worſhip ſubordinate to that yeelded to Chriſt, then behold three ſorts of religious worſhip. Now if we muſt adore a Croſſe without a crucifixe; for that it is an Image and reſemblance of the Croſſe; why doe they not worſhip the barres of windows, or the Sayle-yardes of Ships, ſeeing they reſemble the Croſſe of Chriſt? Why ſhall we not worſhip all the nayles, and all the linnen clothes in the world, ſeeing they better reſemble the nayles which pierced our Sauiour, and the linnen clothes that wrapped him in his infancy? Whereunto if any obiect, that theſe common nayles and linnen, are not in any conſecrated place, nor appointed to that end, nor purpoſely made to ſerue as Images, or memorials of the Paſſion, or birth of Chriſt: I anſwer, that this is to graunt as much as we deſire, and to fall into the like impiety: for this is to affirme, that common nayles and ordinary linnen ought to be worſhipped, if they were carried into ſome holy place, and appointed to ſerue for the reſemblance, or commemoration of Chriſts paſſion; wch our aduerſaries wil be vnwilling to grant: And wherfore then doe they adore all maner of Croſſes, yea without crucifixes, aſſoone as they are put into ſome holy place, and ordayned to repreſent the paſſion? For if the queſtion be of the touching, the linnen touched the body of Chriſt as neere as the Croſſe; yea I ſay, that the nayles and Iron of the Speare touched him nearer, euen to the very heart: and then whence is it, that the nayles and Iron of the Speare put into a holy place, are not adored as well as the Image of the Croſſe? And where is the adoration of this Image commaunded by God?
To be ſhort, I ſay that if any ſhould doe obeyſance, or ſpeake vntounto the kings cloake, although the king did weare it, he ſhould neuertheles be thought to be beſide himſelfe. How much more if he ſpake to the cloake, or did obeyſance to it, when it is hanged vponupon a hooke? And yet how much more, if he ſhould ſalute or talke to the picture of this cloake? In like manner I ſay, that if any had ſaluted the Croſſe, whiles our Sauior was faſtened thereunto, or had ſpoken vntounto it, hee would hauehave beene thought to hauehave beene madde, although his ſalutation had beene relatiuely made vntounto Chriſt. How much more then if he had ſaluted it alone, Chriſt not being thereon? And how much more, if he had ſaluted or ſpoken to the picture, or Image of this Croſſe? eſpecially to a bare Croſſe without a crucifixe, as at this day the Church of Rome doth? Certainely no wordes can ſufficiently expreſſe the abſurdity of this abuſe.
So Coeffeteau doth giuegive no manner of ſatisfaction to that which his Maieſty of England doth obiect: namely, that if the Croſſe ought to be worſhipped becauſe it touched Ieſus Chriſt; then Iudas his mouth, and the handes of thoſe that buffeted him, and the land of Canaan whereon he walked, which is at this day an example of Gods curſe, ought alſo to be worſhipped.
Coeffeteau anſweres, that the reaſon is not alike, becauſe the lips of Iudas, and the handes of the executioners, were their liuing members that touched him ſacrilegiouſly: but the Croſſe was a dead thing, and a guiltleſſe Inſtrument of the death of our Redeemer. This is but a bare ſhift: for firſt, if our Sauiours touching had made dead things adorable, it ſhould much more hauehave made prophane things holy. Our aduerſaries hauehave alſo forged a fable of one S. Longis, that with hate and inſultation pierced his ſide, and thereby became a Saint. And ſecondly, the Croſſe (as Coeffeteau ſaith) is not to be worſhipped the more, for that it was a dead thing: Thirdly, the water wherewith Chriſt was baptized, obteyned no life thereby, and (to ſpeake with Coeffeteau) it was an innocent Inſtrument of his baptiſme; and did touch Chriſt, and yet was neuer adored Fourthly, our aduerſaries (as I ſuppoſe) would not worſhip the empty Chalices, although they did beleeue that the bloud of Chriſt, yea his whole body had beene therein. They will not adore the Prieſt, albeit hee hauehave often eaten God, and that he come to take Chriſt a freſh into his ſtomacke: Fiftly, the whips wherewith Chriſt was bloudied, were harmeleſſe Inſtruments of his ſufferings, yet wee finde not that euer Chriſtian worſhipped them: Sixtly, nothing touched Chriſt ſo neare, as the nayles and ſpeare that pierced him, and they were alſo harmeleſſe Inſtruments of his paſſion, and yet the primitiue Chriſtians neuer worſhipped them. Conſtantine put two of them into his Helmet, and of two others he made a Bitte for a Horſe; wherein he had ſome ſeedes of ſuperſtition: yet had Conſtantine adored theſe nayles, he would hauehave cauſed them to bee put into the Church, rather then to hauehave put them into the mouth of a Beaſte, and left them hanging on a poſt in the Quirry:Ambroſ. de obitu Theodoſu Theodor. Hiſtor. Lib 1. cap. 18 foreign. and yet Theodoret and Ambroſe approue this action: Seuenthly, if the nayles touched the body of Chriſt nearer, and his foreparts deeper then the Croſſe, why doe they not adore the Image of the nayles, and yet they adore the Image of the Croſſe, yea without a crucifixe?
Coeffeteau addeth, that there is more in the Croſſe beſides the touching, for it is a repreſentation alſo of the death of Ieſus Chriſt. If he ſpeake of the true Croſſe, it is not true that it repreſenteth the death of Chriſt. For that of the Croſſe, which they worſhip now adayes, is but little peeces of worme eaten woode, which hauehave neyther figure nor faſhion of the Croſſe. But if he ſpeake of the Image of the Croſſe in ſiluer, or paynting, it is falſe that Chriſt euer touched it. And if theſe Croſſes be without crucifixes, they doe not reſemble the paſſion. For there is no Image of the paſſion, where there is no Image of him that ſuffereth; it may be ſome remembrance but no reſemblance.
The Reader ſhall alſo note, that Coeffeteau omits that excellent obſeruation which the King makes touching the bodily touch, and the touch of fayth; and the example of the woman that touched the hemme of Chriſts garment, as alſo the example of that woman that ſaid, Happy is the wombe that bare thee; together with the reaſon which he doth excellently draw, from the perſon and the ſhadow of Peter: and the compariſon of Images condemned by the Prophets, which hauehave eyes and ſee not, eares and heare not, with the Croſſe which hath no reſemblance of eyes or eares. This Doctor ſuffers all this ſweetely to ſlide a way, and honeſtly holdeth his peace; hauing of ſet purpoſe (in my opinion) made his booke a foile to giuegive luſtre to the King of great Britaines booke.
After all theſe abuſe, theſe our Maſters hauehave the good grace, to accuſe vsus of miſpriſion of the Croſſe of Chriſt, who ſay with the Apoſtle, Galat. 6. God for bid that I ſhould reioyce in any thing but the Croſſe of our Lord Ieſus. Our aduerſaries talke of the Croſſe of Chriſt, but we practiſe it; they paint it, wee beare it; they glory in ſome peeces of the Croſſe, but we in ſuffering for his name; they paint it on walles, and we print it in our hearts: many carry it toſſing vponupon their body, whoſe belly is an enemy of the Croſſe of Chriſt. Let vsus learne then to faſten our affections to his Croſſe, and to crucifie our olde man with him. But for the worſhipping of Croſſes of golde or ſiluer (for the mettall is honoured) we ſay with the auncient Chriſtians in the Dialogue of Minutius Foelix, Cruces nec colimus nec optamus, We neyther worſhip, nor wiſh for Croſſes. He doth vsus wrong that thinkes, that we reiect this ſigne and memoriall of the paſſion, we onelyonly wiſh the abuſe and Idolatry to be reformed.