Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 13
THE XIII. OR XII. CHAP.
That the signe of the healthfull crosse was honoured in the first sixe hundred yeares, and of those two grosse ignoraunces in M. Iewell, thinking the signe of the crosse not to be an image, or that to hauehave the signe of the crosse, in great regarde for Christes sake, is not to worship the same signe, and consequently to worship an Image. Also the materiall word of Christes crosse is holy, as a signe and as a relique. A miracle wrought by the woode of Christes crosse. The bishop of Ierusalem brought forth the crosse to be adored euerye Easter. The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian made a lawe in the honour of the crosse. By M. Iewels confession the signe of the crosse was had in great regarde among the Christians. S. Stephens image painted and hanged before his sepulchre with a crosse on his shoulder. Probianus was accompted no perfect Christian, because he would not adore the holy crosse of Christ. M. Iewell is conuinced by words of his owne alledging. The writers of hymnes. S. Chrysostome did set forth some parcell of Christs crosse to be adored and kissed.Sander.
Maister Sander telleth vsus that when he speaketh of the worshipping of the crosse,Fulke. he meaneth either the materiall crosse whereon Christ suffred, or els the signe and image thereof. The material crosse, he saith is not onelyonly holy, as ye signe of him yt died on it, but also as sanctified with the blood of Christ. As though the blood of Christ was a sanctification vntounto an vnsensible blocke of wood. It was the aulter whereon the sacrifice of our redemption was offred. Although it be sometimes so called vnproperly, because it seemed so in the eyes of men, yet our Sauiour Christ himselfe, was both the priest and the sacrifice, the temple & ye altar of our redemption, whereof Augustine saith, De fide ad Petrum Dia. ca. 2. Iste igitur est, qui in se vno totum exhibuit quod esse necessarium ad redemptionis nostrae sciebat effectum, idem scilicet sacerdos &. sacrificium, idem Deus & templum. This is he that in himselfe onelyonly exhibited all whatsoeuer he knewe to be necessarie for the effecte of our redemption, the same being both the prieste and the sacrifice, the same beeinge God and his temple. But a temple he could not be, except an altar were within him, and not without him. Christ is therefore the holy altar, and not the cursed crosse. But he addeth that it is an holy relique and not onelyonly an Image, If there were so great holinesse in that materiall crosse, it is maruaile none of the Apostles made any acounte of it, nor any of the faithfull, not Ioseph and Nicodemus, which with muche lesse suite might hauehave obteyned it of Pilate, then the body of Iesus. Nor the church by the space of three hundreth yeares, vntill the time that Helena is saide to hauehave founde it with the two crosses of the two theeues: whiche I take to bee but a fable and an imposture of some that after Helena was dead, forged a crosse & nailes, affirminge that they were founde by Helena.
For it soundeth like no trueth, that Eusebius whiche knewe the same Helena the mother of Constantine the great, and writeth of her deuotion and of her doinges in the holy lande, woulde hauehave omitted suche a noble inuention of the crosse, with so manie miracles about the same, eyther in his storie, or in the life of Constantine.
I knowe there is a shorte note of it in his Chronicles, but that seemeth to be added by some other since his time, whiche he would not hauehave omitted to declare at large in his storie, where hee setteth out in many words, matter of muche lesse importaunce then that supposed inuention was. Againe they that in latter times write of it, as Ambrose, Ruffinus, Socrates, Theodoretus, and Sosomenus seeme to hauehave receyued that matter onelyonly of reporte and of no written monument, for scarce one of them agreeth with another. For to omitte how incredible it is, that the Iewes woulde hauehave buried that crosse to keepe it from the Christians; whiche they more safely might hauehave burned. Wherefore should they burie with it the two other crosses of the theeues? And admitte there were suche holinesse in Christes crosse, that it coulde not corrupt, yet howe were not the other two crosses rotten in three hundreth yeares lyinge in the earth?
But admitting that storie to be true (as I promise you, it is no article of my beliefe) what meaneth M. Sander to saye the materiall crosse is not onelyonly an Image, by which he meaneth that it is an Image? whereof I praye you shoulde it bee an Image? Will you nowe confounde the thinge with the image thereof, as you doe offer the Image with the thing? …f that materiall crosse were an image, then the images thereof be images of an Image, which is nothinge of it selfe, and then by your owne rule they be Idoles. But you saye it was an instrument of our redemption and therefore holy. If that be a good reason, Pilate, Annas, Cayphas, Iudas, the souldiers which crucified Christ, were holy, for they were instruments of our redemption. But Ambrose, De obitu Theodosi…; calleth it the standerde of saluation, the worde of trueth, yea life it selfe.
I praye you giuegive Ambrose in his eloquente oration leaue to vse rethoricall figures of amplification, and let him expounde him selfe in the same. Habeat Helena quae legat, vnde crucem domini recognoscat; inuenit ergo titulum, regem adorauit non lignum vtique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum, sed adorauit illum qui pependit in lig…o. Let Helena hauehave somewhat that shee may reade, whereby she may know the lordes crosse. Therefore she founde the title, shee worshipped the kinge, not the wood verilye, for this is an heathnishe errour, and a vanitie of vngodly men, but shee worshipped him that hath hanged on the wood.
Thus Ambrose although he credited this inuention, yet he affirmeth it is an heathnishe errour, and a vanitye of wicked menne to woorshippe the tree that Christ dyed on, much more the signe or Image thereof, seeing al worshippe belongeth to God. But Master Sander replyeth, that he saieth, Non insolentia ista sed pietas est, cum defertur sacrae redemptioni: this is no insolencie but godlinesse, when honour is giuen to the holy redemption. Speakinge of honour due to the woode in respect… that it belongeth to Christ. But Ambrose speaketh not one worde of honour due to the wood of the crosse, but defendeth the estimation of the crosse of Christ, which i… our redemption. For speaking of the nayle which Helena caused to bee forged into the diademe of her sonne the Emperour, he saith: Sapienter Helenę egis quae crucem in capite regum leuauit, & locauit, vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur. Non insolentia ista, &c. Helena did wisely, that lifted vp the crosse in the heade of kinges and so placed it, that the crosse of Christ might be worshipped in the kinges. This is no insolencie, &c. as aboue. So that he speaketh not of the woode of the crosse, but of the iron of the nayle.
Beside we see a great difference betweene the reuerent offering of a thing, and the honouring or worshipping thereof, which yet Master Sander eueryevery where confoundeth. But Ambrose speaketh further in the person of the Iewes. Ecce & clauus in honore est. Beholde euen the nayle is in estimation, and that which we knocked in to death, is a remedy of health, and with a certaine inuisible power tormenteth the deuils: Kinges are bowed to the iron of his feete. Here saith Master Sander, we hauehave the adoration of iron. Is this like that Ambrose, who before condemned the adoration of the wood for an heathnish error, doeth now commende the bowinge to iron? why Master Sander, doe you not confesse, that the Iewes spake this and not Ambrose, or Ambrose spake this in the person of the Iewes? And who knoweth not in such fictions of persons speaking, the Orator must frame his talke as they, whome he supposeth to speake are like to say. The Iewes then in sport do say, kings bow down to a piece of iron: meaning to the Emperour, in whose creste this iron nayle was, is it then the iudgement of Ambrose to allow the bowing to yron in any respect? O vaine & friuolous argumentes of the Papistes, that must borrowe their authority of the complaint of the perfidious Iewes. But you may knowe what honour was done to ye yron, yt as ye one nayle was placed in an honourable place, namely in the Emperours Diademe, so an other was placed in his horse mouth, for so saith Ambrose De vno clauo frenos fieri precepis: she commaunded his bridle to be made of one nayle. This was no great honouring of that holy yron, to put it to bee champed and slaboured in an horse mouth, although Ambrose make a misterie of it. And the thirde nayle other writers say, was cast into the Sea to staye a tempest. All three being thus bestowed by auncient testimonie, ye Papists hauehave fourteene more in diuers places of Fraunce, Italy & Germany, beside ye fifteenth that was shewed at Paules crosse by maister Iewell since the Queenes reigne.
But Ruffinus calleth it blessed. And Cyrillus healthfull, and precious, because it leadeth vsus to the memory of Christs death. So woulde an image of Iudas Iscarioth doe. It was the best reason those auncient writers had to defende that supersticious estimation, which they had of the signe of the crosse.
As for the report of Paulinus, that the same crosse had a Church and a secreate place made at Ierusalem where it might be honourably reserued, which ye Bishop brought forth at Easter to be worshipped of the people, if it be true, yet proueth it not the worshiping of images, for the crosse was no image.
But that it is not like that any church was erected to the Crosse, Saint Augustine sheweth, that it was counted sacriledge in his time to make a Church vntounto any creature. Contra. Maximin. lib. 1. titu. 11. Nonne si Templum alicui sācto angelo excelentissimo de signis & lapidibus faceremus anathematizaremur a veritate Christi, & ab ecclesia dei, quoniam creaturae exhiberemus eam seruitutem, quae vni tantum deb… …r deo? si ergo sacrilegi essemus faciendo templum cuicun que creaturae, quomodo non est Deus verus, cui non templum facimus, sed nos ipsi templum sumus? If we made a temple vntounto any holy and most excellent Angel of woode and stones, shoulde we not be accursed from the trueth of Christ, and from the Church of God, because we shoulde giuegive that seruice to a creature which is due onelyonly to God? If therefore wee shoulde be sacrilegious in making a temple to any creature whatsoeuer, how is not he a true God, to whom we make no temple, but we our selues are his temple? Except M. Sander will say the crosse was no creature, wee must say with Augustine, it ought to hauehave no temple. What superstition and Idolatrie hath done, is not the question, but what should be done and what is wel done, is all the controuersie.
The feastes of the inuention of the crosse which hee maketh of 1200. yeares olde, and the exaltation of nine hundreth, (beside that the antiquitie of the inuenting is not proued,) yet argue not any worshippe of the crosse, more then the feastes of the Apostles and martirs. which were kept onelyonly in remembrance of them, and not to adore or worship them.
That maister Iewell graunteth the signe of the crosse to hauehave beene had in great regard among the Christians, what helpeth it your cause, seeing hee alloweth not the superstitious abuse thereof? But you say, if it be a thing vsed in the whole primitiue Church, it must not be called a supersticious abuse, for maister Iewel hath submitted himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares. A man may easely perceiue, with what cōscience maister Sander handeleth this cause, yt so impudētly affirmeth so manifest an vntruth: For who euer heard maister Iewell submit himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares in all matters of controuersie? Where did he euer take vponupon him to discharge the first sixe hundreth yeares of all error and supersticion? Although for certeine questiōs vttered in his sermon, he made challeng of 600. yeares, yet did he neuer allowe of all thinges that were done or taught in the church for 600. years. But I pray you let vsus see how substancially M. Sander proueth the signe of the crosse to hauehave ben in estimation with ye whole primitiue church.
His first authour is Tertulian, almost 200. yeares from Christ. And from him he descēdeth to Cyprian, Basill, Augustine, Chrisostome, &c. Tertulian sheweth only the sining of mens foreheades therewith, whethersoeuer they went. The later age brought in that signe into baptisme, confirmation, the Lords supper, and almost in to eueryevery ceremony. So superstition crepeth like a ringworme, at the first as a tollerable indifferent matter, then as a holye thing, nexte as a necessarie thing, and last of all into open and grosse Idolatrie, as in the times following those six hundreth years.
But before all those whom M. Sander nameth, Irenaeus lib. 1. testifieth that the Valētiniane heretiks brought the signe of the crosse in great estimation, calling it Oron confirmatiuam crucem the limit and terme of all things, & the confirming crosse, abusing euen the same testimonies of scripture for the proofe thereof, which the Papists doe, and namely maister Sander in this Chapter. Paulum autem apostolum & ipsum reminisci huius crucis dicunt: Verbum crucis &c. Mihi autem non eueniat gloriari nisi in cruce Christi: And they say that euen Paule the Apostle himselfe doth remember this crosse: The worde of the crosse &c. GOD forbid that I should boast in any thing, but in ye crosse of Christ. Seeing therefore so auncient a writer as Ireneus, testifieth, that the first estimation thereof came from so horrible heritikes, howsoeuer the later ages hauehave abused it, it cannot be proued a thing vsed in the whole primitiue church, that it might be no supersticious abuse.
Next to this he citeth Chrisostome Or. 1. De adorat. cru…is. that not onelyonly the Crosse it selfe whereon Christe dyed, but also the signe and shape of it, ought to be worshiped and adored.
And againe he citeth afterward in this Chapter either ye same or such an other. Hom. de adoratione crucis. But in all Chrisostomes workes there is no book, oration, homily, sermon or treatise of any such title. There be in ye second tome two homilies de cruce & latrone, and a third de cruce dominica, but in none of them is any such words as he citeth, eius figuram & effigiem coledam adorandam que : or any thing to such purpose. Wherefore I can not otherwise thinke, but this is some blinde forgerie vnderunder the name of Chrisostome, which is not extant in all his authenticall writings.
But Chrisostome in deede calleth the crosse whereon Christ dyed, which was so much esteemed, and whereof eueryevery man desired to hauehave a peece, inclosed it in golde, hanged it about their neckes &c. lignum condemnationis the woode of condemnation: and the signe thereof so much vsed and esteemed Simbolum mortis the signe of death: in demost, ad gent. quod Chr. sit Deus. But M. Sander will proue the worshipping of the signe of the crosse by lawe, if it will not stande with diuinitie hee citeth Cod. Iust. tit. 11. tom l. Vnica. but it is Cod. Iust. lib. 1. tit. 8. le nemini licere &c. The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinianus made a law in these words: Cum sit nobis cura diligens per omnia superni numinda religionem tueri: signum Saluatoris Christi nemini licere vel in solo, vel in silice, vel in marmoribus (humi positis) insculpere, vel pingere, sed quocun que reperitur tolli, granissima paena mulctandis▪ si qui contrarium statutis nostris tentauerint, specialiter imperamus. Where as we hauehave diligent care to defend the religion of the highest God in all thinges, wee specially commaunde that it shalbe lawfull for no man to graue or paint the signe of our sauiour Christ either in ye ground, or in flint, or marble stones (lying on ye ground) but whersouer it is found (to be taken away) vnderunder a most greuous forfet to be paid of thē yt attempt yt which is contrary to our statuts. Cod. Iust. Ti. 11. vnica. This was a kinde of honoring the signe of the Crosse (saith he) when it was forbidden to be grauen on the ground, least it should be dishonored, if it were troden on, euen as Helena, S. Ambrose witnessing feared to tread vponupon the crosse of Christ, which he calleth the sacrament of saluation. Of Helena we heard before yt shee worshipped not the crosse, howe much soeuer she made thereof.
And if this lawe were to be vnderstood as M. San. would hauehave it, yet here is no worshipping of the crosse spoken of. But touching the vnderstanding of this lawe, M. Iewel is reproued, first in citing it out of Petrus Crinitus, who leaueth out these wordes, humi positis, lying on the ground, which Iustinians Code addeth, then in false translation, wherof he wil speake afterward. But concerning the first, for as much as Petrus Crinitus was a learned man, about that time when bookes beganne to be printed, before this cōtrouersie of images was moued, his report is more to bee credited then the Printers presse, for the auncient reading of this lawe, how so euer M. Sander fondly compareth him with Iustinian corrupted. Moreouer, to proue this corruption probable, those wordes humi positis, are altogether superfluous, for when he had saide before in solo on the ground▪ what neede he add afterward lying on the ground? Also the disiunctiue, vel, or, set before these words in solo, (which M. Sander hath cleane left out in his translation) doth sufficiently declare, that the Emperours meaning was, to prohibite all grauing and painting of the signe of Christe, whether it were of the crosse or of the image of Christ, either on the ground, or else where, bicause it is against the religion of the high God, to make any images or signes of him to any purpose. As for the daunger of treading vponupon the signe of the crosse, is not in any one word of this lawe touched. Neither was it a thing regarded in the deepest dungeon of Poperie, for crosses & images of Christ and of the Trinitie, are yet to be seene of their making, vponupon a great number of graue stones in England to this day, which argue, that either the Papistes did against this lawe, or else that this lawe had no such meaning as M. Sander feigneth it to hauehave.
But M. Iewell confesseth, that the signe of the crosse was had in great regard among the Christians, for that most worthie price that was offered vponupon it: and yet hee confesseth not, that either they worshipped the signe of the crosse, or that their regard was no greater thē it ought to hauehave bene. For if any such regard had bene due to the signe of the crosse by Gods ordinaunce, the Apostles that deliuered to vsus all the counsell of God, would not hauehave omited it in their writings. Eph. 20. vers. 20. & 27. And M. Sander him selfe, after he hath iangled a while confusely, of regarding and worshipping, at length confesseth, that eueryevery regard is not commonly taken for a worshipping, but some is, as the couetous mans regarding of money. So that his argument and his conclusion is nothing else, but a sophisticall conuersion of particulars, which nothing toucheth the matter in controuersie: Some worshipping is a regarding, therefore some regarding is worshipping. Both these are true, and yet the regarding of the signe of the crosse, is not thereby proued a worshipping thereof. And yet he is not ashamed to proceede, as though he had proued all regarding to be worshipping. For hee saith, If M. Iewell had a piece of that crosse that Christe dyed on, he would preferre it before golde and siluer &c. and this regard should be a worshipping or honouring of it. I beleeue if M. Iewell had a piece that had bene worshipped, hee would hauehave burned it, and so would I. And yet if I had but a pibble stone, that came out of the land of promise, I would keepe it, and make much of it, so would I doe of the crosse, if it were free from idolatrie, but I would worshippe the one, no more then the other. How long will this sophisticall Doctour walke vnderunder a cloud of ambiguitie of words? Let him either proue such honoring & worshipping as the Papistes vse vntounto ye crosse or signe therof (which is the thing we impugne) to hauehave bene vsed in the eldest Primitiue Church, or else let him striue about termes and words among sophisters & children. But if M. Iewel should take the crosse for no better then a common piece of wood, hee should (saith hee) be blasphemous against the death of Christ. O grieuous accusation. Ezechias tooke the brasen Serpent for no better then a piece of brasse, which was a figure of Christe, and yet he was not blasphemous against the death of Christe. But heare his reason, Christe vouchsafed to segregate it from other wood, to make it the instrumēt of his passion. Where find you that Christ did choose his crosse? I thinke it was rather appointed to him by the Iews, then prouided by him selfe: if you say, he did segregate it in his secret determination, I answere, yt so he did segregate Iudas, Annas, Caiphas, Pilate, the Iewes and souldiers, to be instruments of his passion. And yet none of them therefore to be regarded or worshipped, except of those detestable heretikes that thinke they were profitable instruments of our redemption. But O holy swords & axes of tyrants, and tormentours, that were embrued with the bloud of the Martyres, O holy fire that burned them, O holy water that drowned them, O holy gallowes and ropes that hanged them! For why should not these also hauehave their regard and worship according to the proportion of their deserts, whose eternal felicity they were instruments to procure?
Yet once againe M. Iewell is challenged, for denying the cognisances of the crosse, in flags, banners, or targets, to be images. Also the letter that Ezechiel sawe in vision, the crosse that Constantine sawe in the ayre, the marks in mens garments, and the mysticall letters in the temple of Serapis. First touching the mark which Ezechiel saw, it is not described of what figure it was, onelyonly that a marke was set, for Tau, signifieth a marke, and not onelyonly the name of a letter, which in that time perhaps it had not, & so did S. Cyprian read it, Contra Demetrianum, transi mediam Ierusalem & notabis signum super frontes virorum. Go through the middest of Hierusalem, and thou shalt marke a signe vponupon the foreheads of the men. The signe that Constantine sawe, was the character of the name of Christ, in two letters X & P after this maner, as both Euseb. witnesseth, and his coynes yet remaining do shew. ☧ Eu. de vit. Con. lib. 1. and therefore no crosse nor signe therof. The marks that hauehave appeared in mens garments, perhaps were imagined rather thē images, as children imagine dragons, & Gryphons in the clouds. The mystical letters in ye temple of the idol Serapis, could hauehave no relation to the crosse of Christ, which ye idolaters knew not. Therefore ye follie of those ecclesiastical writers is bewraied, yt thoght christianitie much helped by such heathenish & superstitious fantasies: as for the rest, I answere as M. Iewell, that they are but barres laide one ouer an other, and no images. Yet M. San. maruelleth what blind ignoraunce this is, so to say. But to make the matter more plaine on his side, hee maketh the shape of Christe hanging with his armes abroad, all one with these signes or characters aforesaid, which is no blinde ignorance, but wilfull abusing of his readers, wtout all shame or shape of honestie. And yet, he will baffull vsus with a doutie definitiō of an image (as he saith out of Gregorie Nazianzen) that eueryevery similitude, likenesse, or shape of one thing taken out according to the samplar of an other thing, is an image, & then he runneth out into his old cōmon place of inward imaginations. But I pray you syr, who euer in those days or in ours, sawe the crosse that Christ dyed on, to make an image thereof according to the samplar? If none, but ye painter or grauer hath imagined it, then is it an image of an imagination, which is the samplar thereof, and not of the crosse of Christ, and so it is counterfet, and consequently by your own distinction an idoll. And in very deed, so many diuers figures and formes therof as we see to be made, argue that there is no certaine truth knowne vntounto men, of what forme or figure it was: for some make it headlesse, thus ✚ some draw one barre through the other thus ✚ some drawe this barre at the vpper end, some through the middest, some make circles, some squares, some triangles at the foure endes, some make them blunt, some make them sharp, &c. some make the crosse ragged, some euen, so that there is no certentie, and if al these be images of Christes crosse, it skilleth not what proportion be kept in making of images according to the paterne. Hitherto therfore M. San. fond argument to proue worshipping of images by M. Iewels confession, hath no force to enter into any reasonable mans credite, bicause hee hath neither proued these signes of the crosse to be images, nor such regard as M. Iewel confesseth, to hauehave bene a worshipping of them, in that sense that the controuersie is betweene vsus for worshipping of images.
But whearas maister Iewell saith, the same crosses were not set vp in any Temple, maister Sander confesseth not the same, but other such as they were, for proofe wherof he citeth a new found old Doctor called Euodius Bishop of Vzal in Affrike, writing about S. August. time, a book of the miracles of S. Stephen, in which he saith, S. Stephens image was painted with a crosse on his shoulder &c: this old Doctor was firste painted at Louan anno, 1564. but he cometh too late, to claime his antiquitie after so many hundred yeares, in which neither he nor his writing was euer harde off.
That the people were taught to kneele down to crosses, which Maister Iewel denieth, he proueth by the example of Probianus,Lib. 2. Cap. 19. of whom Sozomenus in ye tripartite historie doth write: That being somtimes a pagane, but afterwarde made a christian, he did in some parte follow the doctrine of the Christians. But he wolde not adore the cause of all our health, that is, the moste holy crosse. Hee beeing of this minde, the diuine power apeared to him, and shewed him the signe of the crosse set on the aulter of that church. And did manifestly declare that since Christ was crucified, all thinges that were done for the vtilitie of mankinde, had not been done by any meanes without ye vertue of the reuerend crosse, neither of holy Angels nor of godly men.
Here saith maister Sander, it is euident, that the signe of the crosse was set vponupon ye alter of S. Michaels church in Constantinople. Yea sir in that vision if it were true. But it is small euidence to proue that it stoode in the churche in deede. For if it had stoode on the alter in such honorable estimation, Probianus wolde not hauehave contemned it before. But where you say, he was compted no perfect Christian, because he wolde not adore the holy crosse of Christ: you walke still vnderunder your cloude of ambiguitie. For how proue you that ye adoration here spoken of, is yt kneeling to the crosse, which the Bishop denieth to hauehave been taught? it seemeth that Probianus newly conuerted from paganisme, had not yet that honorable estimation of the reprochefull signe of the crosse, which the Christians of that time had. But whereas M. Iewell vpbraideth them with that blasphemous prayer, which they make to the crosse, kneeling on their knees, O crux aue, spes vnica, Alhaile O crosse, our onelyonly hope, M. Sander saith, those wordes doe so conuince his blasphemous doctrine, that he shall neuer be able to auoide the argument, whiche is grounded vponupon them. You hauehave need M. Sa. to set a good face on those wordes, euen of the same metall that your crosse to whom you speak is oftentimes made. But what Herculian argument I pray you do you bring forth? Forsooth S. Paul vsed the same phrase, when he said, God forbid that I should glorie but only in the crosse of Christe. But good sir, S. Paul speaketh neither to ye wodden crosse, nor of the signe thereof, but of the death of Christ. And you would make men beleeue, that you do so. Namely, that you say not those wordes to the crosse, but to Christ crucified. Thus you would couer your shame with impudencie. But you cannot so escape: for Thomas Aquinas a great Saint and Doctour of your Church. 3. Sen. di. 9.91. ar. 2 q. 4. affirmeth that the crosse of Christ is to be worshipped with the s…me Latria or Diuine worshippe, that Christ crucified is to be worshipped, & that euen vntounto the crosse you speake, when you say all hayle O crosse, our onelyonly hope.
And if you will say this was but one Doctours opinion, yet the very wordes of that hymne and the rubrike thereof, shall conuince you, that you speake to the crosse, and not to Christ Beata cuius brachijs preci…on pependit sęculi, flatera facta est corpori, prędam que tulit Tartari. Blessed is that crosse on whose armes the price of the worlde did hang, it was made a beame to weigh his bodie, & tooke the pray away from hell. Immediately after these words the rubrike biddeth the quire turne to the altar where the crosse standeth, as M. Sander saith, and then follow these wordes. All hayle O crosse our onelyonly hope, in this time of passion, increase rightehusnesse to godly men, & giuegive pardon to guiltie persons, By these it is plaine, that this prayer is made to the crosse, and not to Christ, neither is it any thing like to the phrase which S. Paule vseth, of glorying in the crosse of Christ. And that Maister Sander neede not to make the matter so straunge of their speaking to the crosse: this hymne sung on the exaltation day and so often repeated in Anthemes and Versicles, doth sufficiently declare, Crux fidelis inter omnes arbor vna nobilis, nulla silua talem prosert frōde, flore, germine, dulce lignum, dulces clauos, dulce pondus sustinens, Sola digna tu fuisti ferre precium saeculi, atque portum preparare nauta mundo naufrago, quem facer cruor perunxit fusus agni Corpore. O faithfull crosse the onelyonly noble tree among all, no groue bringeth foorth such a tree in leafe, in flower, in budde, bearing that sweet wodde, those sweete nayles, that sweete weight. Thou onelyonly hast beene worthie to beare the price of the world, and beeing a mariner to prepare a hauen for the worlde that made shipwracke, whiche the holie bloud shed out of the lambes bodie hath annointed. What insensible blockes are they that prate thus to, and of an insensible stocke?
But to iustifie the former blasphemous hymne, Maister Sander will proue that it was made of olde time, either of Hilarie, Ambrose, Fortunatus, Sedulius, Prudentius, or Gregorie, or else he cannot tell of whom, or when. But what is his reason trow you? Marie, because it doeth concerne the holy time of Lent, and is receiued not onelyonly in England, but also in Italie, Fraunce, and Spaine. O inuincible reasons, it was not for naught that he bragged, that Maister Iewell should neuer be able to auoide the argument, that is grounded on these wordes.
The last writer cited for the worshippe of the crosse is Chrysostome Hom. de adorat cruc. saying, Hodiernus dies pre…iosae crucis venerationi constitutus est. This day is appointed to the worshipping of the precious crosse. Admodum beati ij qui castis labijs sancto que ore eam vt amplexantur, exeunt. Very blessed are they that go forth with chaste lippes and holie mouth to kisse it.
But what a mockerie is this, that those wordes whiche this author speaketh allegorically of the spiritual crosse, yt is to say, of the death and redemption of Christ (which no man doubteth, but with all honor it is to bee imbraced) should be drawn to a wooden image of I cannot tel what crosse, to be worshipped, licked and kissed. For it followeth immediatly Re enim vera illud domini verbum implent: Si quis me sequi velit seipsum abneges, tollatquecrucem suam et me sequatur. For they doe in verie deede fulfill that saying of our Lord: if any man will follow me, let him deny him selfe, & take vp his crosse & follow me. And expounding what crosse he meaneth, he saith: An vt lignum vnusquis quae nostrum ferat? certè non. Que enim hęc virtus est? Sed vt ad pericula instructi simus, & sanguinē in animis nostris suum ferentes, ad cędem et mortem quotidie parati ita omnia faciamus vt si ad vesperum nos victuros esse non speraremus. What, doth he commande eueryevery on of vsus to bear a peece of wood? No surely. For what vertue is that? but that we shoulde bee furnished against daungers, and carying about his blood in our minds, we should be ready to be slaine & to die and so do all thinges as if we hoped not to liue vntill the euening. Chrysostome also in many other places speaketh magnifically of the crosse but then he meaneth the death and passion of CHRIST, he commendeth also the figure of the crosse, but yet with out any adoration of it: of the crosse he saith in epist. ad Colloss. Hom. 3. Deo reconciliauit per seipsum, per mortem, per crucem. Papè quomodo illa rursus commiscuit, etenim ne putares vnum esse, ne que crucem aliquid esse iuxta seipsam, per seipsum dicit. He hath reconciled vsus to God, by him selfe, by his death, by his crosse: good lorde how he hath againe ioyned these together, for that thou shouldest not thinke that they are one, nor that the crosse is any thing by it selfe, he saith by himselfe. The signe of the crosse he calleth ye signe of death, to put the people in remēbrance not only of ye death of Christ, but also of their own suffring & patience. So farre he was of from setting vp the signe of the crosse to be adored or kneeled vntounto, that grosse idolatrie had not preuailed in his time, nor long after.