The first Article.

This article hath no title, and in effect it hath no matter. Fulke. For 13. leaues are spent about a needelesse & impertinent controuersie, of the Authoritie of y ^e ho­ly Scriptures, and of the Church of God, whereof the one is the rule of faith, the other is the thing ruled and directed thereby. Nowe whether ought to bee y ^e Iudge, the rule, or the thing ruled, is the question. The rule say wee, as the lawe: the Church, sayeth he, as the Iusticier. And then we are at as great contro­uersie, what or where the Church is. In effect, the cō ­trouersie commeth to this issue, whether he be a Iu­sticier, or an iniusticier, which pronounceth sentence contrary to the lawe. I would think that common reason might decide these questions. That he which giueth sentence against the lawe, may haue the name, and occupy the place of a Iusticier, but a true Iusti­cier he cannot be in deede. Right so, the Popish Church, which condemneth the trueth for heresie, hath vsurped as the Iudge, but in deede is a cruell tyrant. But the controuersie is not of the worde, but of the meaning, and where shall that be founde but in the mouth of the Iudge (sayeth he?) if this were true, I woulde neuer be a Bachiler of lawe, if I were as Martiall, nor yet a doctor thereof, except it were to deceiue poore clyantes for their money: if there were not a sence or meaning of the lawe, which o­ther men might vnderstande as well as he that oc­cupyeth the place of the Iudge, that I might appeale when I sawe he gaue wrong sentence. But let vs briefely runne ouer his Achillean arguments.

The Eunomians, Arrians, Eutychians, and Maximus the heretike, reiected the testimonies of the fathers, and the authoritie of the Church, and appealed to Scriptures. So doeth manye [...] wrangling lawyer, to continue his fee from his [Page 127] clyant, appeale when he hath no cause, but receyued right sentence according to the lawe, ergo no appeale is to be admitted. This is Martials lawe, or logyke, I knowe not whether. But what was this Maximus you name so often, Master Martial, that S. Augu­stine writ against Could you reade your note booke no better. Against Maximinus the Arrian he wri­teth that neither of them both was to be holden by the authoritie of Councels, the Nicen, or the Arimi­nense, but by the authorities of the Scripture, lib. 3. Cap. 4.

But Tertullian would haue heretikes conuinced by the authoritie of the Church, and not of the Scrip­tures. Yea verely, but such heretikes as denyed cer­teine scriptures, and peruerteth the rest by their false interpretations. Such are the Protestantes, sayeth Martial: for Luther denyeth the Epistle to the He­brues, the Apocalipse, the Epistle of S. Iames, and S. Iude. But Luther is not all Protestants, neyther did Luther alwayes or altogether denye them. Neither do the Protestantes affirme anye thing in matters of controuersie, in their interpretations, but the same is affirmed by writers of the most auncient and pure Church. Martiall obiecteth, that Christe sent not his disciples alwayes to the Scriptures: but sometimes to the figge tree, to the flowers of the fielde, to the fowles of the ayre &c. Paul alledgeth the heathen Poet, also customs & tradition. And we also vse similitudes of Gods crea­tures, and alledge custome and condition, but so that the scripture be the onely rule of trueth, whereto whatsoeuer in the worlde agreeth, is true: whatsoe­uer disagreeth from it, is false. The traditions of the Apostles, 2. Th. 2. Luk. 10. 1. Io. 4. Mat. 18. which by their writings wee knowe to be theirs, we reuerently receiue, not as mens traditi­ons, but as the doctrine of God, for wee heare them euen as God. Also we heare the voice of the Church admonishing vs, if we giue offence.

Finally, y ^e Patriarks, Prophets, Apostles, Euāgelists, [Page 128] Pastors, Ex [...]. 10. Ioel. 1. Eph. 4. and doctors, we all reuerence and heare, as the messengers of God, but so that they approue vnto vs their sayings out of the worde of God, and doctrine of Christ. Likewise, we admit the writings of the fa­thers, so farre as they agree with the writings of God, and further to be credited they them selues required not. The sayings of the doctors, that Martiall ci­teth, for the credite of old writers, you shall finde sa­tisfied in mine answere to Hoskins, almost in order as they be here set downe: for one Papist boroweth of another, and fewe of them haue any thing of their owne reading. The saying of Clemens is aunswered lib. 1. Cap. 8. Eusebius concerning P [...] and Gregory, and Hieronime, Cap. 7. The say [...] of Irenaeus and Athanasius, that we ought to hau [...] [...]course to the A­postolike Churches, which reteine the doctrine of the Apostles, against newe heresies, as also of Tertullian, to the like effect, we acknowledge to be true, but see­ing the Church of Rome reteineth not the Aposto­like doctrine, at this day, we deny it to be an Aposto­like Church. Therefore as many as build vppon it, or vpon any auncient writers wordes, which hath not the holy scriptures for his warrant, as M. Cal. sayde, buyldeth vpon an euill ground. For if an Angell from heauen teach otherwise then the Apostles haue preached vnto vs, be he accursed. Here the quarreling lawyer fin­deth fault with his translation, because Euangelizaui­mus may be referred, as well to the Disciples, as to y ^e Apostles, so that y ^e Disciples preachings are to be cre­dited as well as y ^e Apostles, No doubt, if they preach the doctrine of the Apostles, of which the controuer­sie is, and not of the persons that preach it. But these quarels, sir Bacheler, are more meete for the bomme courtes, where perhaps you are a prating proctor, then for the schooles of diuinitie. Wee are gone out, you say, and that we confesse in our apologie. Yea, wee are gone out of Babylon, but not out of the church of God, but abyde in the doctrine of Christ. And you [Page 129] are gone out of the Church of God, which remaine in the synke of Rome, that is departed frō that which was heard from the beginning, and was sacrosanctum apud Apostolorum Ecclesias, moste holy in the Apostles Churches. Tert. li. 4. cont. Mart. Math. 15. You cannot abyde to be charged with the saying of Christ. They worship mee in vaine, that teache the doctrine and precepts of men. First you saye, the A­postles were men, whose traditions the Church must receiue: yea sir, but they deliuered no doctrine of their owne. Secondly, Christ speaketh of the Scribes & Pharisees, and their fonde traditions, and not of the Church and her Catholike traditions and customes. And they be Scribes and Pharisees, which euen in the Church, teach a false worshipping of God, according to the doctrines and traditions of men, disanulling the com­maundements of God, as the Popish teachers in their doctrine of Images, communion in one kind, priuate Masse, &c.

That Augustine framing a perfect preacher, wil­leth him to conferre the places of Scripture together: you say, it is a profounde conclusion, to inferre, that he sendeth him not to doctours distinctions, censure of the Church, Canons of the Popes, nor traditions of the fathers: but onely to quyet and content him selfe with the worde of God. And these last wordes you saye, are not found in Augustine, de doct. Chr. Cap. 9. & se­quentibus, as though Master Calfhil recited the words, & not the sense, for which he referreth you, not only to that Chapter, but to the rest following, in al which there is no mention of doctors distinctions, Popes Canons, &c. But this is an argument ab authoritate negati­uè. Make as much and as little as you will of Augu­stines authoritie, Master Calfhill hath rightly infer­red vppon Augustines iudgement, that if conference of Scriptures wil make a perfect preacher, which you graunt, he needeth neyther doctors distinctions, nor Church censures, &c. but may quyet and content him selfe with the onely worde of God.

[Page 130] But it would make an horse to breake his hal­ter, to see howe Martiall prooueth out of Augustine, that God teacheth vs by men and not by Angels, and that knowledge of the tongues and instructions of men, is profitable for a preacher: yea, the consent of moste of the Catholike Churches, and the interpreta­tions of learned men: as though all those were not to be referred to the dewe conference of scriptures, where onely resteth the substance of doctrine, and the authoritie of faith, and not in doctours distin­ctions, Church censures, Popes Canons &c. which haue no grounde in the Scriptures, or else be con­trary to them. Where Master Calfhill sheweth that as before the newe testament was written, all things were examined according to the wordes and Ser­mons of the Apostles, so after the newe testament was written, all thinges ought to be examined ac­cording to their writings, because there is none other testimonie of credite extant of their sermons & wri­tings. Martiall replyeth out of Saint Augustine, that wee haue many thinges by tradition, which are not writen, which being vniuersally obserued, it were madnesse to breake, Ep. 118. But Augustine spea­keth not of doctrine, but of ceremonyes or obserua­tions. Out of Hierom ad Pam. he obiecteth that our Creede is not written in the Scriptures, which is vt­terly false, although the fourme of the symbole be not set downe, as wee rehearse it.

Thirdly, out of Epiphanius contra Apostolic. li. 2. Heres. 61. that wee must vse tradition, because all thinges cannot be taken out of the holy Scriptures. Therefore the ho­ly Apostles deliuered certeine things in writing, and certeine things in tradition, &c. But they deliuered nothing in tradition contrary to their writinges, neyther o­mitted they to write any thing that was necessarie for our saluation. The matter whereof Epipha­nius speaketh, is that it is a tradition of the Apostles, that it is sinne to marry after virginitie decreed, and [Page 131] yet he holdeth, that it is better to marrye after virgi­nitie decreed, then to burne, contrary to the doctrine of the Papistes. But Martiall frankely graunteth, that no doctour is to be credited against the Scrip­ture and the content of the whole Church. Yet where Master Calfhill sayde, that no man in any age was so perfect, that a certeine trueth was to be buylded on him, bringing examples of Aaron and Peter, the one the high Priest of the Iewes, the other affirmed by the Papistes to be the same of the Christians.

He quarreleth at his induction, because he sayeth not: & sic de singulis, where as his argument followeth not of the fourme of induction, but of the place a maiore ad minus.

After this, (as he doeth nothing but cauill) hee chargeth Master Calfhill for corrupting Saint Au­gustine saying: Truth mee not, nor credite my wri­tings, &c. Proem. lib. 3. de Trinit. For Saint Augu­stine sayeth not: trust mee not. But he confesseth that he sayeth: Do not addict thy selfe to my writings, as to the Canonicall Scriptures. See what a corruption here is, when Master Calfhill rendereth not the words, but the meaning of Augustine.

Againe, saint Basil (he sayeth) is vilely abused, be­cause Master Calfhill sayeth, Saint Basil setteth forth by a proper similitude, with what iudgement the fathers of the Church should be read. Conc. ad Adol. wheras Basil speaketh of prophane writers. As though Basils similitude may not serue to shewe howe both should bee read, because he speaketh but of one sorte.

Likewise he cryeth out that Saint Hierome is not truely alledged, because the Printer in the English translation of Hieroms words hath omitted this word not, which he hath set downe in the Latine. The 4. pretie persons he putteth vppon Master Calfhill, as foolishe and childishe I omitt, onely the slaun­derers persons I will touche: In saying, that the [Page 132] fathers declyned all from the simplicitie of the Gospell in ce­remonies. He chargeth M. Calfhill to be a slaunde­rer. Because God hath not suffered all the fathers to declyne, lest hell gates should haue preuailed against his Church. Although M. Calfhill speake of those fathers onely, whose writings are extant, yet the gates of hell in ydle ceremonies, did but assault, they did not preuaile against the Church. And these fathers departed not from the Gospell, but declined from the simplicitie thereof. But you Papistes haue depar­ted from the Gospell and doctrin of saluation, in set­ting vp a newe sacrifice, in seeking iustification by workes, in ouerthrowing the true and spiritual wor­ship of God. As for the two Iudges, the worde and the spirite, he denyeth them, finding manye defectes in the worde: As that it is sencelesse, dombe, deafe, not able to prooue it selfe to be the worde of God, hauing no more power to be Iudge and decide controuersies, then the booke of statutes to put on my lorde chiefe Iustices robes, and to come to the Kings bench, and giue sentence. I thinke there is no Christian man, but abhorreth to reade these blas­phemies. But let vs see, whether the booke of sta­tutes (although it put on no robes) is not iudge, even ouer my lorde chiefe Iustice him selfe, who is a mi­nister seruing to pronounce the lawe, not a King to alter the lawe: for he him selfe must be obedient to the lawe. Nowe in all controuersies that be de iure, either the lawe is plaine to be vnderstoode, or it is obscure: If it be plane, as that a felone must be hanged, or the sonne must inherite his father, &c. the Iudge pronouncing the lawe with authoritie, and execution following his sentence, brydleth the ob­stinate person that will not obey the lawe, which he knoweth as well as the Iudge. If the lawe be hard to be vnderstoode, the Iudge must seeke the inter­pretation thereof, according to the minde of the law-maker, and not according to the his owne fantasie. So that in all cases, the Iudge hath no authoritie ouer [Page 133] the lawe, but vnder the lawe: so that if the giue wrong sentence, both he and his sentence are to bee iudged by lawe. Or else why doe you Martiall in your ciuill lawe courtes, so often crye out, sit liber iudex, let the booke be Iudge? If you will not allow the booke of Gods law to be Iudge, euen ouer them which haue authoritie as Iustices haue in the common lawe, to pronounce it, and to declare it.

The Spirite he refuseth to be Iudge, because it is in­uisible, secreate, vnknowen, vnable to be gone to, but in the Church: therefore the Church is the Iudge, and ney­ther the worde nor the Spirite. But the Spirite by his owne substance incomprehensible, is by his effects in the holy Scriptures visible, reuealed, knowen, and able to be gone vnto, therefore a sufficient Iudge, taking witnesse of the Scriptures, and bearing wit­nesse vnto them. For that maiestie of trueth, that po­wer of working, that vniforme consent which is in all the Scriptures inspired of God, maketh a won­derfull difference of them from all writings of men of all sortes.

But let vs see Martials arguments against the Spi­rite of God, to be iudge of the interpretation of the Scriptures. Paul and Barnabas in the controuersie of circumcision, went not to the word and Spirit, but to the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem. O blocke-head and shamelesse asse. Paul and Barnabas doub­ted not of the question, but sought the generally qui­et of the whole Church by consent of Councell. But whether went the Apostles and Elders for decisi­on of the question? but to the worde and Spirite. Reade Act. 15.

Againe, he citeth Deuteronom. 17. that the people in controuersies should resort to the priestes for iud­gement: but where should they fetche their iudge­ment, but of the lawe of God? as it is in the same place.

Againe, Christ hath appointed Apostles, Euan­gelistes, [Page 134] &c. therefore it is not a generall precept, for all men to trie, all men to iudge what doctrine they receiue, bicause all be not Apostles, Euangelistes, &c. Then in vaine saide Christ to all men, Iames 5. 1. Iohn 4. Actes 17. search the scrip­tures, in vaine the Apostles trie the spirites, neither did the Boerheans well, that daily sought the Scrip­tures, to see, if those things were so as the Apostles taught.

Martiall is to be pitied if he knowe no difference betweene authoritie of publike teaching, and the tri­all and examination of doctrine, whereof this per­taineth to all men, the other to such onely as are cal­led thereto. But Martiall proceedeth to shewe, that as GOD appointed one high Priest to the Iewes, to avoide schismes, so he appointed Peter among the Christians: and for this purpose he citeth diuers sen­tences of the auncient Fathers, which all in order almost, the reader shall finde cited and satisfied in myne aunswere to Doctor Sanders booke of the rocke of the Church Cap. 5. except one place of Tertul­lian De pudicitia, which I maruell this Popish Lawyer would alledge, being so contrarie to his purpose, but that the poore man vnderstoode it not. Qualis es &c. What art thou ouerthrowing and changing the in­tention of our Lorde, giuing this personally to Peter: Vpon thee (saide he) I will builde my Church. If it were personally saide to Peter, (Syr Bacheler) counsel with Baldus and Bertholdus, whether it goe by succession to the Pope or no? Which Tertullian denyeth to pertaine to euery Elder of the Church, bicause it was spoken personally to Peter.

And nowe at the length beginneth he to come to the argument of his booke, the signe of the crosse. Which he saide was the fourth signification of the word (Crosse) in Scripture, and calleth it the materi­all and mysticall signe of the crosse, which Master Calfhill denieth to be once mentioned in Scripture, in that sense that Martiall taketh it. Martiall repea­teth [Page 135] that which he had saide before, that Esaye cap. 49. saith: I will set out myne signe on high to the people, which Hierome vpon that place expoundeth to be the stan­dard of the crosse, that it may be fulfilled which is written, the earth is full of his praise. Et iterum &c. And againe. In all the earth his name is wonderfull. Which wordes follow­ing immediately, Martiall craftily suppresseth, and falleth into a brabbling matter, that preaching which Master Calfhill saide was this standard, is not the one­ly standard or signe lifted vp by GOD for conuersion of the Gentiles, but miracles and good examples of life, &c. Whereas the question is, whether the Popish signe of the crosse, be the signe spoken by Esay and Hierome. And the exposition added by Hierome, sheweth plainely, that he meaneth not a red or blue crosse banner, but the preaching of Christe crucified, whereby the earth is filled with the praise of GOD, and his name is wonderfull in all the earth. But Mar­tiall in the end concludeth, that it hath pleased the aun­cient Fathers to appoint and ordeine the signe of the crosse, to he one meane among many, by which the praise of GOD is set foorth. Where he should haue proued, that the signe of the crosse (as he taketh it) is mentioned in the scrip­tures. Other cauils and slaunders not more false then foolish, I will clearely omit, as I purposed in the be­ginning, and followe onely such matter as is proper to the question in controuersie, namely the signe of the crosse.

The second text, to proue that the signe of the crosse is mentioned in the scripture, he citeth out of Iere. 4. Lift vp a signe in Sion which; Hierome likewise expoun­deth, Lift vp the standard of the crosse in an high tower, that is, in the height of the Church. Concerning this interpretati­on of Hierome, how apt it is for the place, I will spend no time with Master Martiall: onely this is suffici­ent for the purpose, that Saint Hierome meaneth not the crosse on the toppe of the steeple, but the passion [Page 136] of Christ: whereto he exhorteth the people to runne for aide as to a standard of comfort, against the enimie that was comming vpon them.

The third text is Matth. 24. The signe of the sonne of man shall appeare in the cloudes: which diuers of the olde writers expound to be the signe of the crosse. Some to be Christ him selfe, as Chrysostome in Matt. 24. Hom. 49. Some to be the crosse it selfe on which he dyed, as Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 77. and Theophilact. in 24. Matth. Some other the passion or signe of the crosse, as Hierome vpon that place: so that the Doctors being in diuers opinions, & speaking doutfully, there is no certaintie of y ^e matter. That the signe of the sonne of man is Christ him selfe, as Chrysostome rehearseth some to haue thought in his time, is the most proba­ble opinion, bicause both Marke cap. 13. and Luke 21. do seeme so to expound that signe of the sonne of man in Matthewe. But Martiall is such a perillous Logi­cian, that he will admit nothing but necessarie conse­quences, which we must be bolde to vrge and require of him, for the mention of the signe of the crosse in such varietie of Doctors opinions, and a matter so ob­scure.

The fourth text is Ezechiel 9. the signe Thau set on the foreheads of them that should be preserued from destruction. But what argument or authoritie hath he to proue, that this marke was the signe of the crosse? None at all, onely he quarelleth after his manner, a­gainst M. Calfhils reasons, which shewe it was not the signe of the crosse, but an inward spirituall marke. And least he should flee to the figure of the Samari­tane letter Thau, which Hierome saith in his time, was somwat like a crosse. Hierome himselfe sheweth that the Septuagintes, Aquila, and Symmachus tran­slate Thaua marke, as the word signifieth: only Theo­dotion, left the Hebrue word vntranslated, which bi­cause it is the name of the last Hebrue letter, di­uers thought to signifie Thorah, the lawe, whereof [Page 137] they were obseruers that were so marked. Cyprian also taketh it for a marke, without naming the letter Thau. Contra demetrianum. Wherefore seeing here is no­thing, whereby the fashion of the marke may be ga­thered, fondly doeth Martiall gather, that it was the signe of the crosse.

The fift text, is the marke commaunded to be set vpon all Gods seruants in the Apoc. 7. which Martiall out of Thomas Aquinas concludeth to be the signe of of the crosse, but that is disproued by M. Calfhils three reasons, which Martiall like an impudent wrangler, will vnderstand onely of the place of Ezechiel. 1. The spirite of life and faith is not giuen with the signe of the crosse. 2. Which is not sufficient to dis­cerne the good from the badde. 3. But is receiued of all sortes, therefore the seale spoken of in those places is not the signe of the crosse.

Martials crosse not being found in the holy Scrip­tures, hath yet often remembrance among the aun­cient Fathers, whome M. Calfhill doth iustly reproue in this behalfe, so highly to extoll that signe, which hath no ground in the word of God, either in conten­tion against the Gentiles that disdained it, or in aemu­lation of the heretikes that first vsed it. For if all re­cords of ecclesiasticall antiquitie be sought, that are authenticall, and not manifestly counterfeted, there shall no mention be found of Martials crosse in the fourth signification, before the superstition of the Va­lentinian heretikes, which called the crosse, Horon, con­firmatiuam crucem, which Iraeneus lib. 1. ca. 1. doth speake of. So doth Epiphanius Contra Valent. Haer. 31. But against this reproofe of the olde writers, Martiall hath a plau­sible common place to sporte him selfe, in which not­withstanding euery wise man can see, howe fondly he behaueth him selfe, to be patrone to them, which ei­ther neede not his defence, where they write well, or can not be iustified by him where they write amisse. I will therefore passe ouer all such fruitlesse contro­uersies, [Page 138] and keepe me onely to the argument. That Chrysostome was immoderate somtimes in extolling the signe of the crosse, and such like matters, either Martial must confesse, or else excuse it by a rethorical hyperbole: as where he saith of Saint Pauls chaine: ‘ Si quis me coelo condonet omni, vel ea qua Pauli manus vin­ciebatur catena illam ego honore praeponerem: If any man could reward me with al heauen, or else with y ^t chaine wherewith Pauls handes were bound, I would preferre that chaine in honour.’ Such are many excessiue spea­ches in Chrysostome, both of the signe of the crosse, of the Lordes Supper, of Baptisme, and other thinges. In Tertullians time the signe of the crosse was vsed a­mong Christians, to shewe them selues to be Christi­ans, against the Gentiles, if it were not a piece of Mon­tanus superstition.

But whereas Martiall citeth Constantinus, for the commendation of his crosse, he sheweth him selfe an egregious ignorant person, both in antiquitie and in the historie. For the signe which Constantine com­mended, to be a healthfull signe and true token of ver­tue, by which he deliuered the citie from tyrants, was not the signe of the crosse, but the character of the name of Christe, which was shewed to him from hea­uen, with this inscription, [...], in this GOD, not in this signe, thou shalt ouercome.

And least Martiall should cauill at the signe of the crosse, named by Eusebius, De Vit. Const. lib. 1. you shall vnderstand, that he describeth the standard of Con­stantine to haue bene a long speare, in the top where­of a barre went ouerthwart like a crosse to hang the banner vpon, which euen the Heathen Emperours vsed. But in the banner was set foorth in golde and precious stones that signe which Constantine did see, which was the Greeke letter P, with the letter X, in the middest thereof, after this manner, which is to be seene in many hundrethes of auncient coynes, both [Page 139] of Constantine, and other Christian Emperours which is the Caracter of the name of Christ. Agreeing with the wordes of Eusebius [...]. By which you may see howe ridiculously Mar­tiall and the Papistes looke onely to the crosse staffe vppon whiche the banner hanged, and see not the very wholesome signe in deede, which was described in the banner, namely in the name of Christ, by whom Constantine had so glorious victories.

But Martial omitting to speake of the crosse vsed among the Heathen Priestes of Serapis, will discusse Maister Calfhils two rules. The one: that whatsoeuer is brought in vnder the cloake of good intent, is not straightway allowable.

To this he sayeth, that some thinges are brought in by priuate men, without authoritie of the Pope, and for priuate men he counteth the bishoppes of Spaine, and Fraunce, in their prouincial councels: these binde not generally, except the Pope allowe them: some things are receiued by tradition & custome generally receyued vnaltred, such is the crosse: some are brought in by tradition and custome, but not generally re­ceyued, as that infantes should receyue the commu­nion, &c: such the crosse is not. But seeing he hath not concluded the contradiction of Maister Calfhils sixte rule, it standeth still vnmoueable. That some things are brought in of a good intent, whiche are not allowable.

The seconde rule is: what so euer hath bene vpon good occasion receiued once, must not necessarily be reteyned still, but by aduice of Stephanus bishop of Rome, if it be turned to superstition, be altered by them that come after. These aftercōmers, saith Mar­tiall, are none other but the bishops of Rome his suc­cessours, who as they made the lawe, so they must re­peale it. But Stephanus sayeth. Si nonnulli ex prae­decessoribus & maioribus nostris fecerunt aliqua, Naming not onely his praedecessours, but also his Elders, [Page 140] wherefore he meaneth y ^t not onely his successours, but also his after commers in euery particular Church, as well as his successours in the Church of Rome, ought to abolish with good authoritie such abused customs. But Martiall wil not acknowledge that crossing hath bred such inconueniences, y ^t the inward faith hath bene vntaught, & that the vertue hath ben giuen to y ^t signe, which onely proceedeth from him which is signified. For crossing was not the cause, but the negligence of the Cleargie. As though there may not be many cau­ses of one thing. And if crossing were but an occasion of such inconueniences, there were good cause to take it away. Also he denyeth that they attribute the vertue of the signe, without relation to the merites of Chri­stes passion: whereas M. Calfhil speaketh not of suche shiftes as craftie Lawiers can make for their excuses, but of the opinion of the ignorant people, who haue thought without any further relation, that the signe of the crosse was an holy, blessed, and wholesome thing. And what do they that vse the example of Iulian, who crossing himself of custome, and not with any relation to Christe whome he despised, prooue what vertue the signe of the crosse hath, when the diuels immedi­ately auoyded, do they not manifestly ascribe vertue, to the signe without relation of the maker? Yea, sayth Martial, but Christe gaue such vertue to that signe by his death and passion. Shewe that out of the Scriptures, and the controuersie is at an end.

But Martial the Lawier, for the vertue of the crosse citeth Martiall the Apostle, for so he will be called, & was as his cosin Martial the Lawier affirmeth, one of of the 72. Disciples of Christ. But seeing hee and his epistles haue slept seuen or eight hundreth yeares in a corner, y ^t they were neuer heard of by Eusebius, Hie­rome, Gennadius nor any other of those times, he com­meth to late nowe to challenge the name of an Apo­stle or Disciple of Christe, whose name or writinges in so many hundreth yeares no man hath registred. [Page 141] But this argument is of authoritie negatiue, quod Martiall. But what argument haue you so good to prooue him authenticall, as this is probable to proue him counterfet? Nay if we beleeue Martial, Maister Calfhil hath falsified the Scripture, in saying, that no man dare come neare, nor resist Leuiathan, and Behe­moth the deuils, for beside the quotation is false cap. 40. for 41. The Popishe translation hath not so, and Christe his Apostles and faithfull doe resist the Diuel. Yea sir but not with sworde nor speare, whereof he speaketh, nor with your crosse, but with spirituall ar­mour. As for the errour of the quotation & your tran­slation, euery childe may see how fonde a quarrel it is.

The excuse that Maister Calfhill maketh for Da­mascen, seeing Martial doth not allow, let him make a better himselfe: for some of Damascens errours were such as Martial himselfe and the Papistes will not al­lowe.

But Lactantius maketh the bloud of the pascal Lambe sprin­kled on the dore post, a figure of the crosse on mens foreheads. That is false in your sense Maister Martiall, for he speaketh allegorically of the spirituall impression of of the bloud of Christe by faith, and that his wordes declare, where he saith: that Christ is saluation To all which haue written, Lib. 4. cap. 26. De ver [...] sap. the signe of bloud, that is the signe of the crosse, vpon which he shed his bloud on their foreheades. But Christ is not saluation to all that haue your signe of the crosse on their bodily foreheades. But whereas Lactantius in the next Chapter saith, that deuils are chased away both by the name of Christ, and by the signe of his passion: if it pleased God in those times, by such outward signes to confound his aduersaries, what is that to defend the superstitious and erronious abuse of those signes at this time?

And here Martiall falleth into another brabble, for mistaking his argument, which is not worth a strawe: the end is, the crosse is like a sacrament, although that it be not as good as a sacrament. But wherein it is like? [Page 142] it hath neither institutiō nor element, nor promise, nor effect, of a sacrament, then it is as like as an apple is like an oyster. You say it is instituted by tradition. Proue y ^t tradition to haue come from Christ, and his Apostles. I haue shewed, it came from heretiks. Again God said to Costantine In hoc signo vince. I haue shewed, that God spake neither of a crosse, nor of a signe. And yet if he had, it was but a particular vision authorizing no ge­nerall obseruation. You say it may be a sacrament as well as bread and wine whiche hath no promise: you lie like an arrogant hypocrite. For bread and wine in the vse of the Lordes Supper, hath as good promise, as water in baptisme. Concerning the effect of the sacra­mentes, and howe they be causes of grace, not as prin­cipall efficients, but as instrumental meanes, by which God vseth to worke in the faithfull, it were to begin a newe matter, to stand in argument with you, which doe nothing but wrangle, scoffe, and rayle in this ar­gument, as you doe in all the rest.

Wherefore to returne to the crosse, Maister Calf­hil saith, that if there were such necessitie in the crosse to fight against Sathan, the Apostles dealt not wisely to omit such a necessary weapon.

Martiall aunswereth, that neither he nor the Fa­thers defende it as necessary. Well then, we haue gay­ned thus much, that the crosse is a needelesse weapon against the diuel. But if it had ben necessary, he saith, it had bene none ouersight in the Apostles, which haue in some epistles omitted more needefull matters.

As though they were bound to speake of all mat­ters in euery Epistle. But of the vse of the crosse, they neuer speake, no not where they instruct a Christian man to fight against the Deuill, against whome it is needefull to vse all weapons that be of any force. The quarrell of altering Saint Peters wordes I omitte, as childish. Maister Calfhill rehearseth his meaning, and not his wordes.

The other argument that followeth of heretikes [Page 143] resembling Antichrist in denying, you shall finde an­swered in my confutation of D. Sanders Rocke Cap. 18. in the eleuenth mark of an Antichristian. But Mar­tial is not content that his error in citing the 39. que­stion for the 38. of Athanasius Ad Antiochum should be noted. In deede the errour of number is a smal matter, but when a man will followe wilfully a corruption for a truth, it cannot be excused. That diuels flie when they see the crosse, is question 15. in the best reformed printes, whatsoeuer Martiall doth followe. But to the purpose, except Martial can declare vnto vs, with what eyes the diuelles beholde the crosse, he shall haue much a doe to perswade vs, that this author speaketh of his signe of the crosse in this place. Otherwise I doubt not but when diuels consider the conquest of of Christ vpon the crosse they tremble and flee away, and are miserably tormented, as Athanasius saith: but not when so euer they see the crosse borne in processi­on, or set vp in the market place, or pointed in the aire, either by a superstitious Papist, or by a diuelish con­iurer. Saint Antonies councel, as great and as good as you make him, may well be suspected, seeing it hath no ground in the holy scriptures. That Chrysostome aloweth signing with y ^e crosse in the body, is confessed: but that he accounteth it an idle ceremony, where faith in the crucified is not, Martial can not deny. Nor yet y ^t faith in the death of Christ is sufficient without the signe of the crosse in the body: yet wil he not graunt it to be superfluous, but resembleth it to the incarnation and passion of Christe, without whiche we might be saued by the absolute power of God, to the vse of mi­nisters, good workes, &c. Whereas we ought to say y ^t all these thinges are necessary, because God hath so or­deyned them, but the crossing of the body is no ordi­nance of God, but of men.

That Origine in cap. 6. Ad Rom. li. 6. speaketh not of Martials crosse, but of the passion of Christ, the whole cōtext of his words proueth, as M. Calfhil sheweth. But [Page 144] Martiall replyeth that he saith: ‘So great is the vertue of the crosse of Christ, that if it be set before our eyes, and faithfully reteyned in our minde, so that we looke still vppon the death of Christe, with the eyes of our minde, no concupiscence, &c. can ouercome vs.’ These words (saith he) proue two crosses, one before the eyes, the other before the minde, but if he would shore vp his eyes he might see, that Origen speaketh not of the eyes of the body, but of the eyes of the minde. As for the tantologie that he would auoyde, it may please his wisedome to vnderstand, that the explaning of a Metaphore, is not tantologie, or vaine repetition.

That Cassiodorus, and Lactantius speake of the signe of the crosse it is granted, but because they speak of it beside the Booke of God, Maister Calfhill doth well to disprooue their reasons, as where Cassiodore compareth that signe of the crosse vpon the faithful, to the Princes stampe on the coyne, the comparison is naught, for the signe of the crosse which is vpon hy­pocrites, sheweth them not to be Christes seruaunts. Neither did Christ giue any such outwarde signe, by which they should be knowen, that would professe to be his seruantes, but baptisme. How good Christians the Friers that are the greatest crossers be, I will not stande to discusse, their hypocrisie is too well knowen in the worlde.

Againe where Lactantius ioyneth the signe of the crosse with the name of Christ, to be of force to driue away deuils, he doth as if a man should ioyne a strawe with a speare to runne at tilt withall. For the name of Christ is sufficient, and needeth none assistance of the signe of the crosse to cast out deuils, where Christe hath giuen that power and faith. Yet Martial obiec­teth, that the name of Christ was not sufficient to cast out some kinde of deuils, as in example of the mans sonne. Matt, 17. But it was not for want of the signe of the crosse, but for want of faith, which must be ob­teyned at the handes of God by prayer and fasting. He [Page 145] would haue scripture, whereby the signe of the crosse is forbidden to be vsed, as though euery indifferent thing that may be abused, is expressed by name. To make a signe or figure of the crosse, is an indifferent thing, to make it for a defence against deuils, is a su­perstitious thing, and forbidden by all such textes of Scripture forbidde superstition, and confidence repo­sed in any thing, sauing in God onely, by such meanes as he hath appointed.

That young nouices in the faith were crossed, be­fore they were baptised in Augustines time, it neede to be no question: and yet it followeth not: that those wordes of Augustine, which Martiall citeth, De Symb. ad Catech. lib. 2. cap. 1. were spoken of the signing, but of that which was signified by the signe, as Maister Calfhil answereth. The rest of this article is spent in friuolous quarrels, in which is no argument to vphold the superstitious vse of the crosse, but that deuils are afraide of it, as in the story of Iulian, and a Iewe, in which God declared, what force it had Ex opere operato, of the worke wrought euen without faith, but this he maketh extraordinarie. A simple force that the Deuill should seeme to flie from them, in whose heartes he dwelled still. But Martiall would knowe, how Maister Calfhill is assured that the Deuil did counterfet feare, and was not afraide in deede. Verily I thinke there neede to be no better reason giuen, then that in out­ward appearance he pretended to flie from their bodily presence, from whose heartes he departed not at all, or rather for their wicked coniuring entired with greater force. How little the diuel is afraide of the signe of the crosse, where faith is not, the story of the seuen sonnes of Sceua declareth Act. 19. where the Deuil be­ing coniured by the name of Iesus, whome Paule preached, fel vpon the coniurers and tormented them: vnlesse Martiall thinke it was because they lacked the signe of the crosse, which would haue made them flie away when the name of Iesus and Paule preuailed not [Page 146] against thē. To conclude it cānot be denied, but diuers of y ^e ancient fathers affirm more of y ^e signe of y ^e crosse, then they can iustifie by the holy Scripture, and yet they are abused oftentimes by Martial and such as he is, as though they spake of the signe, when they had re­spect onely to the death and passion of Christ, as be­fore is shewed, and more remaineth afterwarde to be shewed.

The second Article.

That the crosse of Christ was prefigured in the law of nature, Martial. foreshewen by the figures of Moses lawe, denounced by the pro­phetes, and shewed from heauen in the time of grace.

Maister Calfhil saide, Fulke. that the signe of the crosse was neither prefigured in the lawe of nature, nor fore­shewed by the figures of Moses law, nor denounced by the prophetes, nor shewed from heauen in the time of grace, but the passion of Christ & manner of his death. Against whom commeth forth Martiall and offereth to prooue, that the crosse whereon Christe died, was prefigured, &c. which is no contradiction of M. Calf­hils assertion. Although the fathers rather dallie in trifling allegories, then soundly to prooue that the crosse was prefigured in those places which he alled­geth: as August. Contra Faust. lib. 12. cap. 34. that the two stickes which the widowe of Sarepta gathered, did pre­figure the crosse whereon Christ died, not only by the name of wood, but by the number of the stickes, Et de 5. heres. ad quod vult de. cap. 2. that Moses lifting vp his handes to heauen, did prefigure the crosse whereby Christ should redeeme the worlde: So saith Tertullian and Augustine in diuers places. All which proue not that the image or signe of the crosse, but that y ^e crosse it selfe, whereon Christ died, was prefigured, whereof we make no question, but it might be, seeing it was in Gods determination that Christe should die on the [Page 147] crosse: although we would wish sounder proofes then these, for such prefiguration. Here would Martiall excuse his ridiculous argument, because it is not in mode and figure, but in deede it fayleth both in forme and matter, for his minor is false, y ^t the signe of y ^e crosse was prefigured by y ^e hands of Moses. As though there were no difference between the crosse on which Christ suffered, & a superstitious signe of the crosse y ^t a Papist maketh: Concerning the signe Thau in Ezechiel cap. 9. I haue spoken sufficiently in the first article, that it was not the figure of any letter like a crosse, but a marke vnnamed, or described as Apo. 7. And wheras Hierome saith, that the Samaritanes had a letter somewhat like a crosse, it is not to be throught y ^t the Samaritanes had the true forme of letters, and the Iewes lost it. Chry­sostome draweth it to the Greeke letter, and trifleth of the number which the letter Tau signifieth: Tertulliā is indifferent betweene the Latine latter and y ^e Greeke, & setteth this T for the marke of his forehead, diffe­ring somewhat from our Popishe ✚, In Mark. H 14. adver. Mar. li. 30. for which cause Martiall calleth the character of the Latine letter, Tau saying Our Tau is a signe of the crosse. But of this marke more. Art. 1. and in my answere to D. Sanders booke of Images Cap. 13. or 12. Concerning the figure of y ^e crosse, that was in the olde time in the idol Serapis, wherunto he thinketh scorne to be sent for the antiquity of that signe, he answereth out of Socrates, that it was there set by the prouidence of God, as the inscription of the altar in Athens, and among the Hyeroglyphical letters of the Aegyptian priestes, signified life to come. But this proueth no more y ^e superstitious vse therof, then y ^e alter in Athens proueth, that we should set vp such al­tars, and dedicate them to the vnknowen God. Next followeth the brawle about the story of Constantines crosse, which should be the figure of the crosse shewed from heauen in the time of grace, wherein Martial no­teth no lesse then sixe contradictions & foure lyes in, in M. Calfhil, but of them let the reader iudge.

[Page 148] The signe shewed, I haue prooued before, not to haue bene Martials crosse, but the Character of the name of Christ, and so doth Constantinus himselfe cal it, speaking to Christe, [...], &c. Holding forth thy Character I haue ouercome, &c. meaning the standerd in which that Character was imbrodered. But of this I haue spoken sufficient Art. 1. and against D. Sanders booke of images cap. 13. Ar. or after the errour of his print. After much wrangling and brabbling about M. Calfhils principles, wherein it were easie to displaye Martials follie, but that I haue professed to omit such by matters, he cōmeth to the signe of the crosse shewed to Iulian, & marked in his souldiers apparell: which if it were true, as Sozo­menus reporteth it, yet proueth it not y ^t the signe of the crosse was shewed from heauen that it should be vsed of Christians: and the lesse, because it was shewed to none but Iewes, and forsakers of Christian religion, as Maister Calfhill noteth: which might probably be thought to be the marke of persecuters, rather then of Christians. But seeing the Signe of the crosse hath very often times appeared not onely in cloudes, but al­so on mennes apparell, with diuers other sightes, as Conradus Lycosthenes in his booke De Prodigijs obserueth, whether the cause of those apparitions be naturall, or supernaturall, or sometime perhaps artifi­ciall, the appearing of that signe from heauen doeth no more argue an allowance of the Popish ceremonie of crossing in religion, then the appearing of other shapes and sightes in heauen, doe teache vs to frame ce­remonies of armour, of horsemen, of beastes, of trees, of pillers, of circles, and such like, because the figures of them haue ben shewed from heauē. So that hitherto the signe of the crosse hath not bene prooued to haue bene prefigured in the lawe of nature, nor of Moses, neither denounced by the prophetes, nor vsed by the Apostles, nor shewed from heauen to be a pattern of y ^e allowance of superstitious crossing among y ^e Papistes.

The thirde Article.

That euery Church, Chappell, and Oratorie erected to the ho­nour and seruice of God, Martial. should haue the signe of the crosse.

First it is to be remembred, Fulke. that for this position he hath no shewe of the authoritie of the holy scriptures, nor yet the testimony of any auncient writer, that any Church, Chappell, or Oratory should haue any crosse grauen or painted within it or vpon it for 500. yeares after Christ. Eusebius describing diuerse Churches builded in his time, sheweth no such necessary furni­ture of a Christian Church, although, he set foorth e­uen the fashion of the stalles or stooles where the mi­nisters should sit lib. 10. cap. 4.

But Martial to haue shewe of antiquitie, begin­neth with a newe found olde doctour, called Abdias, whose authoritie, seeing Maister Calfhill reiecteth as a meere countefet, Martial spendeth certaine leaues in quarrelling at some of his reasons, and the rest he pas­seth ouer because he can say nothing against them. But touching the credite of this Abdias, if any man be not satisfied with M. Calfhils reasons. I referre him further to the Bishop of Sarums booke against Har­ding. Art 1. Diu. 5. p. 8.

To speake of the vowe of virginitie supposed to be made by the virgine Marie, it is impertinent to the cause. It commeth somewhat nearer, that he defendeth building of Churches in the honour of Saintes, be­cause some Churches of olde haue had the name of Saintes. But Augustine saith of the Saintes. ‘ Quare ho­noramus eos charitate, non seruitute, nec eis Templa construi­mus, nolunt enim se sic honorari a nobis, quia nos ipsos cùm boni simus, templa summi Deiesse nouerunt. Wherfore we ho­nour them with loue, not with seruice: Neither doe we builde Churches to them, for they will not be so ho­noured of vs, because they knowe that we our selues [Page 150] when we are good, are y ^e temples of the highest God: De vera religion. Ca. 55.’ Also Ep. 174. Pascentio He pro­ueth the holy ghost to be God, because he hath a tem­ple. Also Euch. ad Laurent. Cap. 56. The like iudgement he hath de ciuis. Dei. li. 8. Cap. 27. & li. 22. Ca. 10. shewing that it is a diuine honor proper to God, to haue tem­ples erected to his honor, and declaring that y ^e Mar­tyrs churches were places set vp in their memorie, not temples in their honour.

But Martiall fynding nothing for the space of 500 yeares after Christ for his purpose, at length stum­bleth vpon a Canon of the prouinciall Councell of Orleans in Fraunce: that No man should buyld a Church before the Bishop came & set vp a crosse. This canno made in those dayes, sheweth y ^t churches before the making therof were builded without a crosse, neither bindeth it any, but such as build churches within the prouince of Orleans. Beside that it may be doubted of the an­tiquitie of the Canon, seeing it is not found in the re­cordes of y ^t councell, but taken out of the Popes Ca­non lawe, where is most counterfait stuffe. Beside that it is not obserued among the Papists themselues, that before any chuch, chappel, or Oratorie be buylded, the bishop of the diocesse should come and make a crosse there. The next Canon he citeth our of y ^e Coun­cell of Toures the 2. Vt corpus domini in altari, non in ar­mario, sed sub crucis titulo componatur, that the Lords bo­dy be layde on the altar, not in a chest or almery, but vnder the title of the crosse. But Martial doth english it thus: That the body of our Lord consecrated vpon The Altar, be not reposed and set in the reuestry, but vnder the roode. He braggeth y ^• when he was Vsher of Winchester schoole, he taught his Schollers y ^e true signification of the Latine words. Pro Clu. But beside that hee translateth Armarium a reuestrie, Pro Cel. which Tully vseth for a place wherein money was kept, In Ant. which could not wel be an open house, & also maketh a manifest difference betweene Armarium & Sacrar [...], beside also that hee [Page 151] calleth titulum crucis the roode, where findeth he in this sentence the Latine worde for his English worde, con­secrated? But to the purpose of the crosse, this Canon sheweth, that in old time they vsed to lay it otherwise then vnder the title of the crosse, whether they meant thereby the signe of the crosse, or these wordes, Iesus Naz. rex Iudaeorum, which was the title of the crosse, as they had in those dayes many ceremonies growne out of vse, and therefore not vnderstood of vs.

The third Councel is a Canon of the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople in Trullo, which in the margent he calleth the Councell of Chalcedon in Trullo. Can. 73. which M. Calfhil could not finde in y ^t Councel, because it is certeine, & confessed by Geran­za, Martials author, that the sixt Councel of Constan­tinople in Trullo made no ceremonies but of y ^e faith, & that these which he setteth forth, were made priuat­ly by them long after in the dayes of Iustinian, ther­fore they haue neither the authoritie of Canons, nor be free from suspition of forgery. And yet the Canon alledged, proueth not this article, for it only commā ­deth crosses that were made in the pauement to be put out. Nay, sayth Martiall, the prohibition of the crosse to be made on the ground, permitteth it to be made in all other places. For a prohibition restrictiue of a thing to be done in one place, is a lawfull permission for all other pla­ces, which are not namely included in that prohibition. And for this he referreth him selfe to y ^e iudgement of the lawyers. But I thinke his lawe deceiueth him in this point, as much as his diuinitie almost in euery point. For if y ^e kings edict forbid swearing, fighting, braw­ling in his court, I suppose he doeth not permit these things as lawfull in al other places. The last Canon which forbad y ^e laying of y ^e lords body in y ^e vestri, doth not lawfully permit it to be layd in the belfry. The captains prohibition, y ^t no man shal discharge his bel­ly within y ^e precinct of y ^e camp, is not a lawful permis­sion y ^t a soldiar may defile a church without y ^e campe.

[Page 152] The lawe that forbiddeth the Princes image to be made on the pauement, is not a lawfull permission that the same may be set vppon the high altar, what Martials lawe is in these cases, I knowe not, but my reason serueth me not to allowe of those prohibiti­ons for lawfull permission. And where these Canon makers saye: They did reuerence the liuely crosse with minde, tongue, and sense. Martiall inferreth, that this worde sense, declareth that they had a sensible crosse, to which they might shewe their reuerence with their externall senser: Which senses Martiall? their sight, their hearing, their smelling, their tasting, or their feeling. Did you teache your schollers at Winchester thus to interpret? was it the image of the crosse, or the liuely crosse that shewed them that sauing health, which they pro­fesse to reuerence in worde and minde? And were you went to conster Cum seeing, viuifica crux the li­uing crosse, ostenderit doth shewe. For thus you giue mee example to play with you. And if one of your boyes that learned Terence, had so construed, would you not haue streight way asked him, Cuius modi & temporis oftenderit, if he had annswered, the Preterper­fect tense: you woulde haue demaunded, whether doth, be the signe of that temps, or haue. If haue, then haue not you rightly translated Cum crux viuifica illud sab [...] are nobis ostenderit: Seeing the liuing crosse doeth shewe vnto vs that healthfull thing. Wherefore to leaue this trifling, the Canon is this: ‘Seeing the liuing crosse (that is to say the passion of Christ) hath shewed vnto vs that sauing health, it behoueth vs to employ all our studie, that we may giue vnto it, by which we are saued from our olde fall, that honour which is conuenient. Wherefore, giuing reuerence vnto it with minde, speache, and vnderstanding. wee commaund that the figures of the crosse which are made of some in the ground and pauement, be vtterly taken away, lest the trophee of our victorie be iniu­ried by treading of those that passe ouer it.’

[Page 153] It is not without fraude, y ^t beside your false transla­tion, you haue omitted per quam ab antiquo lapsu seruati sumus, lest euery popish woman might see, that the Canon speaketh not of honour giuen to the image of the crosse, whereby we are not saued, but to the passion of Christ.

But Martiall reiecteth the Councell of Constanti­nople condemning images, as M. Calfhill doth the 2. of Nice, allowing them. The best way then as Augu­stine conncelleth y ^e heretike Maximinus, were to giue ouer the hold of Councels on both sides, & try y ^e mat­ter by the word of God.

It is a fond quarrel y ^t he picketh to M. Calfhill, of y ^e time when y ^e Eliberine councel was kept, if it be aunci­enter then hee supposeth, it is of greater credite, for y ^e latter times were more corrupt. And whereas he gi [...] ­deth at y ^e marriage of ministers, because in the 27. Ca­non of y ^t Councel, the bishop or priest was forbidden to haue any woman to dwell with him, but either his sister or his daughter being a virgine & professed to God, he sheweth both his falshod & his folly: his fals­hod, for y ^t he translateth extraneam which is a strange woman, no other woman. His folly, in seeing y ^e priests daughter, he cannot see his wife but the 33. Canon cō ­mandeth them abstinence as from their wiues, & be­getting of children. I answere, if y ^e Canon were not to be vnderstood of a temporal abstinence, the generall Councell of Nice decreed against it, as appeareth in Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 11.

But touching the Canon against Images: Placuit, we decree, that pictures ought not to be in the Church, lest that which is worshipped & adored, should be painted on the walles. First he repeteth his principle of law, before set downe for prohibition, y ^• pictures are only forbidden, & not other images: as though he y ^• forbiddeth wounding permitteth murthering, beside that, they shuld be sim­ple images in which were no picture or painting. Se­condly, he saith, that pictures on walles only are for­bidden, [Page 154] but therin he lyeth, for they are generally forbidden in y ^e church, ergo not in walles only. Third­ly he saith, here is an euident proofe, that pictures were then worshipped. For this argument followeth necessarily vpō these words. That was worshipped, that was forbidden to be paynted in the walles: but pictures were forbidden to be painted vpon walles, ergo, pictures were worshipped. Answere M. Calfhill. Who would haue thought y ^• an Vsher of Winchester & student in Louaine, that teacheth vs an old lawyers poynt, would also teach vs a new Logike point, to cō ­clude affirmatiuely in y ^e second figure, & y ^t all vpō par­ticulers? Answere M. Calf. quod Martial. Nay, answere goose to such an argument. And reason who will any longer with such an asse about this matter, for I will harken to his law, seeing his Logike is no better. For the better vnderstanding of a statute or a Canon diuerse cir­cumstances are to be considered. This was lawe ynough to make him a bachiler. Well the circumstan­ces are these. The authors of this Canon were Catho­like & wise bishops, the place Granata a citie in Spain, which had then many infidels, that thought Christi­ans to commit idolatrie by hauing of Images. The time when they feared persecution, as appeareth by the 59 & 60. Canon. But if we beleeue Garanza, your author, it was about y ^e time of y ^e Nicene councel, when no persecution could be feared; & therfore your cause which you make y ^e fourth circūstance, is forged, y ^t they feared lest those images should haue ben despitefully abused by y ^e Pagans, when they were fled: neither are you able to proue it, & therfore in y ^e end you cōclude, it was but a synod of 19. Bishops, whose decre was vn­done by y ^e second Nicen general councel, y ^e Councel at Frankford. &c. That y ^e councel of Frankfort y ^t cōdem­ned y ^e councel of Nice, he only denyeth y ^t it did so, but answereth not y ^e authoritie cited by M. Calfhill. The booke of Carolus Magnus against images he condē ­neth for a forged tale, although ancient writers make mention of it, & the style of the book doth argue y ^e it [Page 155] was written in that time, if not by the Emperour, yet by his appointment. But seeing he referreth vs to the confutation of the Apologie fol. 328. I wil referre the readers to the defence of the Apologie for the same matter.

After this, he spendeth certaine leaues, in defending the credite of Irenee the idolatrous Empresse, and in defacing those Emperours that were enimies to ima­ges, wherein he hath the idolatrous historians fauou­rable, not sparing to report what so euer their malici­ous enimies could inuent, to slaunder them. But here­of I haue written somewhat in myne aunswere to D. Sanders booke of images cap. 4. or 3. & cap. 15. or. 14.

Nowe commeth in S. Ambrose extolling the crosse: Ser. 56. ‘As a Church cannot stand without a crosse, so a ship is weake without a mast. For by and by the diuell doth disquiet it, and the wind doth squat it, but when y ^e signe of the crosse is set vp, by and by both the iniqui­tie of the diuell is beaten backe, and the tempest of wind is appeased.’ Here Martial triumpheth against M. Calfhil, that the author speaketh not of a crosse beame in the Church, but of the signe of the crosse. But he ly­eth shamefully, for this writer speaketh not of a mate­riall Church, Chappel, or Oratorie, but of the congre­gation of Christe, in which the crosse and passion of Christ hath y ^e same force that the mast in a ship, which is made after the figure of the crosse, and the plough beame in tillage &c. His other sentence Serm. 55. is yet more plaine against him, ‘ Arbor enim quaedam in naui est crux in ecclesia, quae inter totius saeculi blāda & perniciosa nau­fragia incolumis sola seruatur. In hac ergo naui quisquis aut ar­bori crucis se religauerie, aut aures suas scripturit diuinis clause­rit, dulcem procellam luxuriae non timebit. For the crosse in the Church is as it were a certaine tree in a ship, which among y ^e flattring & pernitious shipwracks of y ^e whole world alone is preserued in safetie. In this ship there­fore who so euer shal either bind him selfe to y ^• tree of the crosse, or stop his eares with the holy Scriptures, [Page 156] he shall not feare the sweete storme of luxuriousnesse, &c.’ He alludeth to the fable of Vlysses which tyed him selfe to the mast, and stopped his eares with waxe, that he might not heare the song of the Mermaydes. This sentence (whereof Martial durst cite but three or foure wordes) declareth that his authour maketh no­thing for the title of this Article of erecting the crosse in Churches, Chappels &c. And yet when all is done, I must confesse with the learned, that these Ser­mons were not written by S. Ambrose, but by one Ma­ximus of latter time, Bishop either of Taurinum or of Millain.

Concerning the tale that you father vpon syr Am­brose Caue, of an Island by Rhodes, and a rode there where no anchor nor cable will holde the ship, vnlesse the mariner make the signe of the crosse ouer y ^e place where he casteth anchor: It may be, he reported it as a fond persuasion of superstitious people, but I thinke no that he gaue any credit to it. Poperie is full of such tales. But why doe you charge M. Calfhil with a lye, for saying that in the Popish catholike time, the chur­che of Pauls was twise burned within 50. yeares space. Marie, bicause it was not on Corpus Christie eue, nor the Com­munion table was burned with al the foure yles within the com­passe of three or foure houres, therefore it was no the like pla­gue. But howe often hath the sacrament of the alter, (your God) bene burned, when Churches were fiered? Moe thinges, in which there is any diuersitie, shall be like, by Martials logike or lawe, I can not tell whether it is, by which he condemneth M. Calfhil for a lyer.

Touching Lactantius, he reasoneth to and fro of his authoritie him selfe, and yet chargeth M. Calfhil for so doing. Our iudgement of Lactantius, as of all olde writers is this, that what so euer they speake con­trarie to the trueth of the holy Scriptures, we may boldly reiect it; what so euer they say agreeable vnto them, we doe willingly admit it. The chiefe matter touching this article, is this, that certaine verses are as­cribed [Page 157] to Lactantius, exhorting men to worship the crosse, which verses M. Calfhil denieth to haue bene written by Lactantius. First bicause S. Hierome in the Catalogue of his works, maketh no mention of them: but they might be vnknowne to Hierome, saith Mar­tiall. It is not like they could be vnknowne to Hie­rome, and knowne to Martial. Secondly, bicause he speaketh of Churches, that were scarsly builded in Lactantius time, but Martial proueth, that Christians had churches euen in the Apostles time, and euer since, as though any man doth doubt of y ^t, but of such chur­ches as this versifier speaketh of. Thirdly, bicause the doctrine of these verses, cōcerning images, is contrarie to y ^t Lactantius taught, and was generally receiued in his dayes. Martiall replyeth, that all which Lactantius did write against images, was against the false images of the heathen, and not against the holy images of the Christians. But Christians in his time had no images as holy, in any vse of religion, and his argumēts are gene­rall against all images in religion. Finally, it is also manifest, that his versifier making a Poeticall proso­popeia, induceth Christe hanging vpon the crosse, and speaking to him that commeth into the Church, and therfore no argument of crosse or image may be rightly gathered out of the poeme, who so euer was the au­thor. For immediatly after this verse, Flecte genu, lignúm­que crucis venerabile adora, followeth: Flebilis innocuo ter­rámque cruore madentem, Ore petens humilis, lachrymis suffunde subortis. Bowe thy knee, worship the venerable wood of y ^e crosse, And lamentably kissing with humble mouth the earth which is moyst with myne innocent bloud, wash it ouer with teares flowing out. By these verses then Martial may as wel proue, that the Church floore was moyst with the bloud of Christe, as that there was a crosse in the Church.

To Lactantius he ioineth Augustine, De Sanctis Hom. 19. saying. that Churches are dedicated with the signe of the crosse, where he not onely chaunged the worde [Page 158] charactere into mysterio, but also translated the worde mysterio, by the signe: where he confesseth his fault, he may be pardoned, but where he iustifieth mysterio and sign [...] to be all one, he sheweth him selfe as he is. But howe will he persuade vs, that those Homilies de tem­pore and de Sanctis, of which some one is ascribed to so many authours, were either written by Augustine, or by any of those times, the stile is so dissonant, that any man learned, and of indifferent iudgement, will con­fesse. Although it is not to be denyed, but the signe of the crosse was superstitiously abused, even in the dayes of Augustine, and long before Whereas Augustine re­porteth of a woman called Innocentia, which had a canker healed in her brest by the signe of the crosse, if it were a miracle, it proueth not, that euery Church, Chappell, and Oratorie, should haue a crosse. Great miracles were done by imposition of handes, yet it followeth not therefore, that euery Church must haue imposition of handes. Againe, not onely Cankers, but also Fistulaes, tooth ache, and many other dis­eases haue bene healed by charmes. And yet these charmes are not iustifiable thereby, much lesse to be brought into the Church, as wholesome ceremonies and prayers.

But albeit the crosse be no ordinarie meane, where­by God vseth to conserue health (saith Martial) yet may you not conclude, that he hath not ordained it to remaine in the Church, for any remembrance of his death and passion. For thinke you (saith he) he hath left no more meanes but the preaching of his worde, which euery one can heare? Yes, it hath pleased his ma­iestie to ordaine by general Councels the signe of the crosse, and images to be a meane to put vs in remem­brance of Christes death &c. But seeing y ^e Church flou­rished 300. yeares without a general Councel, and nei­ther that general Councel which was first holden, not three other which folowed, make mention of any such matter, where was the ordinance of God by generall [Page 159] Councels for the crosse? He will say it had the appoint­ment of the prelates of the Church. Which? and when? euery idle ceremonie and vngodly heresie that preuai­led had y ^e prelates of the Church either for the authors or for the approuers. But Christ committed to the pre­lates (saith Martial) the charge and gouernment of his Church. Yea syr, to feede them with his word, and not with dombe signes and dead images, which things he hath forbidden.

Now come we to Paulinus Bish. of Nola, by whom it appeareth that y ^e signe of the crosse was set vp 1100. yeres agoe, in some churches: but the title of the Arti­cle is, that it should be set vp in al Churches. But Mar­tial wil proue, that it was wel done by Paulinus, to set vp the signe of the crosse in his Church, bicause he was an holy and learned Bishop, and no Catholike Bishop or generall councel did find fault with him: for whatsoeuer any holy & lear­ned father did at any time, and was not controlled of any Catho­like father for his doing, was well done, and must be so taken. I denye this maior, For Augustine was an holy and learned Bishop, which did giue the Communion to infants, and thought it necessarie for their euerlast­ing saluation: neither was he controlled therefore, yet did he not well, neither was his opinion true. And where Martial taketh vpon him the defence of Pauli­nus, in commending a woman that separated her selfe from her husband vnder pretence of religion, he play­eth the prattling proctor, picking of quarels against M. Calfhil, without all honestie or shame, For he feig­neth that the fault is alledged, for want of consent of her husband, whereas such separation as he cōmendeth w ^tout consent, is directly contrarie to the doctrine of y ^e holy Ghost, 1. Cor. 7. v. 5. Likewise where M. Calfhil nameth a booke that the Apostles wrote, Martial saith it was but of Pauls Epistles: where he saith it was laide vnto diseases, M. Martial saith it saued a man from drowning, but of these quarels too much. Martiall cōfesseth, that were a Doctor swarueth frō scripture, [Page 160] no man ought to followe him. But if Paulinus swer­ued not from Scripture, when he brought images into the Church, we neede not doubt that any man swerued from Scripture, seeing nothing is more plaine in all the Scriptures, then forbidding of images and simili­tudes of any thing to be made or had in any vse of religion.

Where M. Chlfhil aunswereth to the decree of Iu­stinian (that no Church should be builded before the place were consecrated, and a crosse set vp by the Bi­shop) that this was a constitution of the externall pol­licie, Martial laboureth to proue that it was religious, and yet at length graunteth that it was a matter of ex­ternall policie, wherevpon I inferre, that it was not of necessitie, and so the article is not proued thereby, that euery church should &c. But it commeth of great wis­dome, that he will defend the time of Iustinian from ignorance and barbaritie, bicause the ciuill lawe was then gathered, and a fewe learned men were found in the whole world. All this notwithstanding, the Barba­rians had ouercome a great part of the Empire, and fil­led the world with ignorance and barbarousnesse. A­gainst the decree of Valentinian and Theodosius cited out of Crinitus, he hath many quarells. First against Petrus Crinitus, who was as good a cleark as Martial, Then at the Homily against images, where the Printer calleth him Petrus Erinilus, yet againe y ^e Valentinian not being writtē at large, is mistakē for Valens, where it should be Valentinianus. And if Valens and Theodosius had made such a l [...]e, what an ouersight was it of Eusebius to suppresse it? When Eusebius was deade before any of them were borne, it was a great ouerfight in Martials iudgement, to suppresse in his storie a lawe made by them, which liued neare an hundreth yeare after him, so that belike he would haue Eusebius to write stories of thinges to come. But concerning that lawe of Va­lentinianus and Theodosius, you shall see more in mine aunswere to D. Sanders booke of images. cap. [Page 161] 13. or 12. The rest of this chapter is spent in commen­ding the Church of Rome, whose custome it hath bene (saith Martial) these twelue hundreth yeares, to set the signe of the crosse in the Church, and Pope Pius the fourth did it him selfe of late &c. Concerning the Church of Rome, so long as she continued in true re­ligion, and so far foorth as she mainteined the trueth, as she was greatly commended of auncient writers, whome Martiall nameth: so nowe it is to her greater reproch and shame, earum laudum & gloriae degenerem esse, that she is growen out of kinde and desert of all such prayses: as the Cleargie of Rome writing to Cyprian, lib. 2. Epist. 7. To conclude, therefore, there is nothing shewed to proue that euery Church, Chappel, or Ora­torie should haue a crosse, although in the latter and more corrupt times of the Church, it is declared, that some Churches had a crosse, and at length grewe to a custome in those parts of the world, that euerie church had one, and was thought necessarie that it should haue one.

The fourth Article.

That the signe of the crosse was vsed in all sacraments &c. Martial.

That it hath bene vsed in the later declining times, Fulke. we will not stande with Martiall, but that in the best and purest age of the Church, by the Apostles and their imediate successors it was vsed, or allowed before the Valentinian heretikes, I affirme, that Martiall can not proue by any auncient authenticall writer, be­tweene the Apostles and Irenaeus. Wherefore Master Calfhil aunswereth well, that the ceremonie once ta­ken vppe of good intent, being growen into so horri­ble abuse, is iustly refused of vs. Martiall will knowe what our vocation is, as though we were not able to proue our calling both before God and men. Our Sy­nodes he refuseth, bicause no Councel can be kept [Page 162] without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, in which point as many of Papistes are against him, which holde that euen a generall Councel may be kept to depose an euill Pope, against his will: so he mistaketh the Tripartite historie and Iulian Bishop of Rome, where they speake of generall Councels and Synodes, to determine of matters of faith, from which the Bi­shop of Rome while he was a Bishop, was not to be excluded, bicause those cases touch all Bishops, drea­ming that they speake of all Councels. But long after their times, it was practised as lawfull, for Kinges and Bishops of seuerall prouinces, to gather and holde pro­uincial synods, for the state of their seueral Churches, without the consent or knowledge of the Bishop of Rome. In which some things haue bene determined a­gainst the will of the Bishop of Rome, as in the coun­cels of Carthage and Affrike, and in generall Councels also, as in that of Calcedon, Constantinople the 5. & 6. the Councels of Constans and Basil. But signing with the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles, and so accoun­ted by S. Basil, therefore we ought not to forsake it for any abuse (saith Martial. But howe will S. Basil per­suade vs of that, when we finde it not in their writings: it is more safe therefore, to followe his counsell in his short definitiōs q. 1. where he affirmeth, y ^t it is not law­full for any man to permit him selfe to doe or say any thing without the testimonie of the holy scriptures. And this we will hold euen with Basils good leaue, a­gainst all pretended traditions of the Apostles what so euer. We Knowe the Apostle willeth vs to hold the tra­ditions, either learned by his Epistles, or by his Ser­mōs. But what he deliuered in his sermons, we can not tell, but by his Epistles. Yes, saith Martial, the church telleth you of y ^e signe of the crosse, but seeing y ^e church telleth vs of other things, which are left and forsaken, auouching them likewise to be traditions of the Apo­stles, which ought not to haue ben so giuē ouer, if they had ben Apostolike traditions in deed, we see no cause why we may not refuse these, aswel as those, hauing no [Page 163] ground of certaintie for apostolike traditions, but on­ly y ^e Apostolike writings. Tertullian coūteth y ^e tasting of milke & hony after baptisme, for an Apostolike tradition, bicause it was a ceremonie in his time, as wel as crossing, y ^e one was left long ago, why may not y ^e other be forsakē y ^t hath no better ground, & hath ben worse abused? Concerning the tale of Probianus, which folo­weth next after this discourse, I wil referr the reader to mine answere to D. Sand. booke against images, c1. 13. or 12. after y ^e error of his print, where Calfhil thinketh it not meete, y ^t should be restrained to that whereof there is no precept in scripture, nor they them selues yeld lawful cause, Marti. telleth him, y ^t he must be re­strained, if he will be good Christian. For there is no precept in expresse scripture to beleue three persons & one God in y ^e blessed Trinitie, y ^e equalitie of substance of Christ with his father in his godhead &c. The per­tual virginitie of Marie, y ^e keping of y ^e Sunday, y ^e sacra­ment receiuing fasting, y ^e baptisme of infants &c. you see what an Atheist he is, y ^t can find no more certaintie in y ^e scriptures, for y ^e blessed Trinitie, then for S. Maries virginitie: for the godhed of Christ, then for receiuing y ^e Cōmunion before other meates. If Papistes haue no ground to their faith out of the scriptures, yet we can proue what so euer is necessarie for vs to beleeue. It he dalie vpō y ^e word expresse scripture, either he answereth not to y ^e same thing wherof he is demanded, or else he knoweth not y ^t an argument rightly concluded out of holy scripture, is as good as y ^e very words of y ^e scripture, as when I say, if Peter beleued & was baptized ergo, he was saued, is as true, as these words, whosoeuer beleueth & is baptized, shall be saued. To y ^e second demand, whe­ther y ^e ancient fathers did attribute such vertue to the wagging of a finger, y ^t the holy Ghost could be called downe, & y ^e diuell driuen away by it. Mart. answereth: it is most euident, that as soone as praier is duly made, & the signe of the crosse made, the holy Ghost according to the promise of Christ, commeth downe & sanctifieth &c. and the diuel is driuē away. This is Mart. euidence, other reason he bringeth [Page 164] If he referre the promise and comming of the holy Ghost to prayer, he playeth the palterer, that being de­manded of the crosse, answereth of praier. Otherwise, let him shewe what promise Christ hath made to the signe of the crosse, or to prayer with the signe of the crosse, more then without it. If he can not, you may easily see his pouertie. To the thirde, whether they would haue refused the Church and sacraments for want of a crosse, He beleeueth verily they would not: for the sacraments lacketh not the vertue if the signe of the crosse be o­mitted: yet the fault is great when the tradition of the Apostles is wilfully reiected. Whether it be like they deliuered a­ny needlesse or vnprofitable ceremonie, let wise men iudge. After this, followeth a long and foolish dialo­gisme, about the interpretation of Cyprians wordes. What so euer the ministers of the sacraments be, what so euer the handes are that dippe those that come to baptisme, what so euer the brest is, out of which the holy wordes proceede, the au­thoritie of operation giueth effect to all sacraments in the fi­gure of the crosse, and the name which is aboue all names, being called vpon, by dispensers of the sacraments doth all. Mar­tial so scanneth these wordes, as though M. Calf­hil knewe not the difference betweene the power of God, and the ministerie of man in the sacraments, whi­che Cyprian doth plainly distinguish in these wordes. But to the purpose, Cyprian seemeth to make the fi­gure of the crosse a meane by which God worketh in the sacraments. But in deede hee meaneth, that all sa­craments take their effect of the passion of Christ, as a bare signe and token whereof they vsed the figure of the crosse, and not as a meane whereby God worketh, seeing it is confessed by Martial, that the sacraments if the signe of the crosse be omitted lacke not their vertue. An o­ther foolish brable and vsherlike construing, he ma­keth of Cyprians words, de baptismo Verborum solemnitas & sacri inuocatio nominis, & signa attributa institutionibus Apostolicis sacerdotum ministerijs visibile sacramentum cele­brant. For reprouing Master Calfhil for transla­ting [Page 165] signa attributa institutionibus apostolicis, signes at­tributed to the institutions of the Apostles, he tea­cheth him to conster signes attributed by the Apostolicall institutions, through the ministerie of the priestes. Wherein I maruell that such an auncient student, will nowe suf­fer the word attributa, to goe without a datiue case, which I thinke he would not haue done in his pettite schoole at Winchester. But if I might be bolde vnder y ^e correction of such a grounded grammarian, to conster the lesson ouer againe, I would giue the Latine this English. The solemnitie of wordes and inuocation of the holy name, and the signes appointed by the insti­tutions of the Apostles, for the ministerie of the prie­stes, doth make the visible sacramēt. And what be those signes? By M. Martials leaue, the elements, as water, breade and wine. But then M. Grindal (whom I laugh to see this wise Dialogue maker, to bring in swearing, once or twise in this deuised talke, as though out Bi­shops vsed that veine, as commonly as Popish prelats) M. Grindal I say, must send me to Saint Anthonies schoole, bicause the elements of the sacraments be of Christes owne institution, and not of his Apostles, wherfore those signes must be other goodly ceremo­nies, and the signe of the crosse must not be lest. But if Martial euer were a scholler in that schoole, or any o­ther of any value, he might haue learned long agoe, that institutio signifieth not onely the first beginning of an ordinance, but also a teaching or doctrine: and so doth Cyprian meane, that by the doctrine of the Apo­stles, y ^e Priestes are appointed to vse those signes, which if Martials Vshership will not admit, Cyprian in tel­ling what maketh y ^e visible sacramēt, hath left out the principal part thereof, namely the element, and that which in deede in it is onely visible, for the solemni­tie of wordes and inuocation are audible rather then visible. But in this foolish Dialogue is cited Iustinus Apol. 2. to proue that the olde Fathers vsed the signe of the crosse, in all sacraments. Iustinus Martyr (saith he [Page 166] in the place of M. Grindal) talking of the crosse, biddeth vs viewe in our mindes, and consider with reason, all thinges that are in the worlde, and see whether sine haec figura administren­tur, they may be done without this signe. How like it is that M. G. shold say, Iustinus biddeth vs, when he biddeth y ^e Gentiles, I leaue to speake of. But that he speaketh of our sacramentes, how will Martiall prooue? When both he speaketh to the Heathen, and of Heathenishe customes and ceremonies, or els ciuill and naturall matters. As of sayling, plowing, digging and all han­die craftes, whose tooles had some figure of the crosse, in which the Gentiles did so fondely abhorre and despise Christ for it. Whereas it was to be found euen in the shape of man, in the trophees and standerdes of their Emperour, in the consecration of their dead Em­perours images, whom they worshipped as Gods. For which causes Iustinus thought it vnreasonable, that they should contemne Christ for his crosses sake. But of vsing the signe of the crosse in all sacramentes there is no mention in Iustinus. That in Chrysostomes time & other more ancient fathers, y ^e signe of y ^e crosse was v­sed at the celebration of the sacramentes, M. Calfhil granteth as a ceremonie, & you confesse, It is but a cere­monie, and that our sacramentes lacking the signe of the crosse, and that vsual ceremonie be perfect notwithstanding. And yet you exclaime against vs for omitting a needelesse ceremonie, where we see it hath bene turned from that indifferent vsage of the forefathers, into an idolatrous custome & opiniō of necessitie. The credite of Dionysiꝰ for so ancient a scholler of S. Paul as you would make him, it too much cracked by Erasmus to be cured by Martial. Where M. Calfhil truly faith, & you can not deny, but he hath as good authoritie, for honie, mike, wine, to be restored in baptisme, and the communion to be giuen to children, as you haue for the crosse: you aunswere, these were altered by the Church of Rome, which hath authoritie so to do, y ^e crosse stil remaineth: but marke what you say, were these traditions of the A­postles? [Page 167] if you say no, y ^e like wil I say of the crosse, for y ^e same authoritie cōmendeth thē al a like, for traditions of the Apostles. Wel if they were traditions of y ^e Apo­stles by the holy Ghost, which you hold to be of equal authoritie w ^t y ^t scriptures, & y ^e Church of Rome hath a­bolished the one, why may she not abolish the other? so y ^t your answer conteineth manifest blasphemie. To fortifie your traditions, you alledge y ^t Iesus did many thinges which are not written, &c. but you leaue of y ^t which foloweth, but these are written, y ^t you might be leeue, & in beleeuing haue eternal life. Io. 20. & yet S. Iohn speketh of miracles, not of ceremonies to be vsed in baptisme, wherunto you apply it. But Iesus himself saith, he hath many things to say that y ^e apostles could not then beare, &c. Ioan. 16. And you would know in what worke of the Apostles those thinges are written, yea you would haue the Chapter noted. Pleaseth it you to looke your selfe in the Actes of the Apostles, and in their Epistles, &c. And you shall finde, that the scriptures will instruct the man of God vnto all good works, & make him wise vnto saluation, if these wil not serue your turn, seeke where you wil, & find y ^e deuil & eternal damnatiō. But I pray you, could not y ^e apostles beare y ^t hearing of the signe of the crosse, of salt, oyle, spittle in baptisme, were these such harde lessons to learn, or heauy to beare? if you think they were, I enuy not vnto you so wise a thought. But you will teach vs how we shal know, y ^t these are traditions of y ^e apostles, to this inquire you answer, euen as we know y ^e gospels & epistles to be y ^e Canonical scriptures, by authoritie of y ^e church, which you think sufficient for y ^t purpose. But so do not we, for although we receiue the testimony of y ^e Church, yet we haue greater authoritie out of y ^e scrip­tures of y ^e old Testamēt, & y ^t spirit by which they were writē, being alwais y ^e same by which we are perswaded y ^t y ^e gospels & epistles are the holy scriptures. Againe y ^e vniuersal Church of all times & places giueth witnes to those writings, so doeth it not to these traditions.

[Page 168] Therefore we are neuer the neare to knowe Apo­stolical traditions, by authoritie of the Popish church, whiche ascribeth thinges manifestly contrary to the worde of God and writinges of the Apostles, to Apo­stolike traditions, as Images, halfe communion, pri­uate Masse, &c. After this brabbling of traditions, fol­loweth a long brawle about numbers, which the Pa­pistes do superstitiously obserue, and of the authoritie of the seuentie interpreters, whose translation if it were extant, no doubt but it were worthie of great re­uerence, but seeing these questions are fruitelesse, and impertinent vnto the article, I wil clearely omit them: Martial returning to proue that the signe of the crosse was vsed in consecrating the body and bloud of Christ, findeth himselfe greatly greeued, that M. Calfhil cal­leth the Masse the sacrifice of the deuil, wherein be so many good things, as the Collets, Gospel, epistle, Gloria in Excelsis, &c. by which reasō I might proue a diuelish coniuration in which be so many names of God, and good words, to be an holy peece of worke. Therfore it is not many good parts abused to make a wicked thing good, that can iustifie the Masse, which is an hurrible blasphemie against the death and onely sacrifice of Christ. But M. Calfhil doth not satisfie him, where he citing out of Albertus Magnus, That Christ did blesse the sacrament with a certeine signe of his hand, as Iacob laide his hands on Iosephs sons, and Christ laid his hands vpon the chil­dren, & lifted vp his hands, & blessed his Apostles, &c. asketh why we might not say Christ made a signe of y ^e crosse, considering that Chrisostome, Augustine, and Euthy­mus testifie, that in their time, the signe of y ^e crosse was vsed in consecration, this question (he saith) is not solu­ted. This is sone answered, because laying on of hands, and lifting vp of handes, which be sometime vsed in blessing, doth not proue a crossing with the finger: of ones hand, as the Papistes vse, and because the Euan­gelistes which describe all that he then saide or did for vs to followe, make no mention of any such signe of [Page 169] hand made by him in blessing. The long discourse that followeth of blessing and giuing of thankes, is needelesse, for we know and confesse, that as they som­times signifie all one thing, so they differ sometimes: & we confesse that the bread and wine in the Lords sup­per were blessed, that is to say sanctified and consecra­ted but not with any signe of hand, which is the mat­er in question, but with the worde of God, and with prayer: not onely as bodily meates, but as heauenly and spirituall mysteries, to feede the soule. But it is a sport to see, how Martiall when he hath prooued that which was not in question, that the bread & wine were blessed & sanctified by Christ, & that they must nowe be so consecrated by the Church, he runneth away with the signe of the Crosse, whereof he hath brought no proofe of the vse by Christ: saying, There must be conse­cration by honouring the wordes of Christ, and calling vpon his name, & making the signe of the crosse, which maner of cōsecra­tion the Church learned of Christ, & hath continued euer since: so that we may boldly say with Albertus. He blest it with a cer­teine signe of his hand. But I pray you sir, where learned you this signe vsed by Christ? How proue you that it hath bene vsed ever since? It is inough for Martiall to say, that all the learning in English Doctours will neuer be a­ble to proue this assertion of his to be friuolous.

But seeing he is so Greekish, to teach M. Calfhil to conster Saint Paules wordes? [...], &c. and findeth fault with him for giuing the aoristes the signification of the present temps, let him looke in his lexicon, where I weene al his Greeke is, how he will a­bide▪ by this saying: [...] in Saint Matthew, [...] in Saint Luke, [...] in Saint Paule, haue relation to the bread and wine, and answere to the question whom or what▪ seeing [...] is no verbe transitiue, although the Christian writers, as Iustinus Martir, hath fayned a passiue vnto it.

Again in the saying of Chrysostom Ho. 24. in 1. Cor. Cap. 10. where Martiall will haue vs marke that the [Page 170] body of Christ is seeene vpon the altar, let him & his felowes marke, that if it be none otherwise there, then as it is seene, it is present onely to the faith, by whose eye it is seene.

After this tedious treatise of bleassing and thankes­giuing, he commeth to his olde petition or principle, that the signing with the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles: and angry he is, that he should be called on to proue y ^t it is a tradition of the Apostles, whereof he can finde no mention in Ecclesiastical writers before y ^e Valentinian heretikes. And wheras Cyprian Ad Panpe­ium calleth all traditions to the writings & comman­dement of the Apostles, he crieth out y ^t Cyprian is slan­dered, because he him selfe alledgeth the tradition of Christ for mingling of water with y ^e wine. If Cyprian breake his own rule, who can excuse him? But if he had ben vrged as much for the necessitie of water, as he was for the necessitie of wine in y ^e sacrament, he wold haue better considered of the matter. Frō this matter he de­scendeth to proue the number of sacramentes to be seuen, because matrimony is of some olde writers cal­led a sacrament, when they meane not a sacrament in y ^t sense that baptisme is a sacrament, but generally a mi­stery. And because M. Calfhil saith, that sacramentes were signes ordeined of God to confirme our faith, he wil proue y ^t we haue no sacraments at all, because bap­tisme if it be ministred to men of yeares, confirmeth not their faith, for they must haue their faith cōfirmed before they be baptised, & so must they that receiue y ^e communion. But when infantes be baptised they haue no faith but the faith of the Church, & therefore their faith can not be confirmed. Did you euer heare such a filthy hogge grunt so beastly of the holy sacraments, that they shold be no helps of our father. We beleue y ^t infants, although they haue no faith whē they are baptised, yet haue their faith cōfirmed by their baptisme euē to their liues end. And y ^t they which come to y ^e Lordes [...]able w ^t a true faith in Gods promises, haue y ^e same cō ­firmed [Page 171] by the seale of his word which is that holy sa­crament. Martial calleth for scriptures. Among a thou­sand texts, this one shal serue: Abrahā receiued y ^t signe of circumcision, a seale of the righteousnes of faith, which he had being vncircumcised, Rom. 4. v. 11. Tell vs Martiall by thy lawe, wherefore a seale serueth, if not for confirmation? But what should I talke with them of faith, which as they haue none in the promi­ses of God, so they knowe not what in meaneth.

To that reason of Master Calfhill, that Matrimo­nie bath no promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes, he an­swereth, denying that euery sacrament hath a promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes annexed, and afterward he asketh where hath the supper of our Lorde a promise of remission of sinnes? for sinnes are forgiuen before the sacrament be receiued. Is this y ^e diuinitie of Lo­uaine? is the holy supper auayleable neither for con­firmation of faith, nor to forgiuenesse of sinnes?

Wherfore saith Christ of the cupp? This is my bloud of the newe Testament which is shed for many vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes. Nay (sayth Martiall) if there be a remission of sines, then is it a sacrament propitiatorie, contra­ry to your owne doctrine. Nothing the sooner, so long as remission of sinnes be not tyed to the work wrought, according to your heresie, but sealed vnto the faith of the worthie receiuer. Likewise he quarrelleth against that reason, that Matrimonie conferreth no grace, which is easily proued by this, that Matrimony is good being contracted among Gentyles & heathen persons. And whereas he bringeth in the blessing of God to married persons, either they be such as pertein to all men in general, & so proue no grace of mariage in y ^e church, or else to y ^e faithful only, & so pertaine to faith & not to marriage: as y ^t the faithful woman shall be saued by bringing forth of children. The questiō of marriage after deuorcement, because it pertaineth not to y ^e Crosse I wil not meddle with it, M. Calfhill hath sayd more then Martial can answere.

[Page 172] Touching the popish sacrament of penance, which Martiall and not S. Hierome calleth the second table after shipwracke. M. Calfhil hath likewise proued effectually, that it is no sacrament of Christs Church: Against which, Martiall bringeth nothing but certein sentences of scripture, to proue how necessary repen­tance is after men haue sinned, to obteine remission of sinnes. Whereof S. Hierome speaketh, and not of Po­pish penance, consisting of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, with their blasphemous absolution.

Concerning extreme vnction, that it is no perpe­tual sacrament of the Church, it is plaine by scripture because the gift of healing which was annexed vnto y ^e annoynting of oyle, spoken of in S. Iames, hath long agoe ceased: Wherefore it followeth, that the same ceremonie of annoynting was temporall, euen as the promise of bodily health that was ioyned to it, was temporall. Finally, touching the Councel of Trent, that hath allowed all these for sacraments, how law­full it was, whē he that was accused for heresie, should be the onely Iudge, I thinke Martiall by his lawe could discusse if he list. And as for the saueconduit graunted to the Protestants, they haue learned by the case of I. Hus and Hierom of Prage, to trust the faith of Papistes, as much as they like their religion. To conclude, there is nothing prooued in this article, which pretended, that the crosse was alwayes vsed in the sacraments. And it is confessed, that when it is vsed, it is but a ceremonie, and such as the want ther­of taketh not away the effect of the sacraments, wher­fore seeing the sacraments are perfect without it, they are not to be condemned, which vpon good grounde and sufficient authoritie haue refused it.

The fifth Article.

That the Apostles & fathers of the primitiue Church bles­sed them selues with the signe of the crosse, Martiall. & councelled all [Page 173] Christian men to do the same, and that in those dayes a crosse was set vp in euery place conuenient for it.

The first controuersie is of the signification of this worde benedicere, Fulke. which with Martiall is all one with signare. For although he finde not in the olde writers, benedicebant se signo crucis, they did blesse them selues with the signe of the crosse, yet he findeth signabant se signo crucis, they marked them selues with the signe of the crosse, which is all one with him. But not so with vs: for there was another vse of marking at the firste, then for blessing. The Christians among the Pagans, marked them selues with the signe of the crosse, in to­ken that they professed him that was crucified. Af­terward to put them selues in minde of the death of Christ. These were tollerable vses of an indifferent ceremonie. The opinion of blessing with the crosse, as M. Calfhil sayeth, was taken (as the terme) from superstitious olde women. And Martiall cannot de­nye, but the terme of blessing in that sence, is a newe signification of the worde, and therefore not vsed of the auncient fathers, which that he might obscure with brabling, as his custome is, he repeateth his for­mer iangling of the significations of this worde bene­dicere, and howe it sometime signifieth to blesse with the handes, as when Christe blessed his Apostles and the children. As though to vse a ceremonie of lifting vp, or laying on of hands, when he blesseth, is to blesse with a bare ceremonie of the handes, as they do with their crosse. Nay, he sayeth, to blesse with the crosse is as olde as Iacob, who with his handes acrosse bles­sed Iosephs children. The Papistes are wise in their generation, when they would not haue vnlearned mē to reade the scriptures. For euerye childe of seuen yeares age, reading the storie of Iacobs blessing, will easely perceiue, y ^t his laying of his hands ouerthwart, was not for any blessing with the crosse, but because he was to lay his right hand vpon the yonger, and his [Page 174] left vpon the elder, contrary to their fathers placing of them, which would haue had his elder sonne pre­ferred. But seeing Martiall maketh himselfe so cun­ning in the significations of benedicere, to blesse, which he will not haue to say well, or pray for only, &c. but to sanctifie. Let him remember, that in his own sence, the Apostle sayeth to the Hebrues, cap. 7. ver. 7. y ^t which is lesse or inferior is blessed of the superior, by which argument, he proueth Melchisedech to be greater then Abraham. If then the Apostles and fathers did blesse them selues with the signe of the crosse to san­ctifie themselues, I demaunde, whether the signe of y ^e crosse was greater then the Apostles. For no man wil saye that the Apostles were greater then themselues. If it were not greater, then surely they were not bles­sed by it Wherein also the fable of Abdias is con­uinced, which sayth of S. Paul: muniens se signo crucis, arming himselfe with the signe of the crosse. was the signe of the crosse stronger then S. Paul? for men arm them selues with harnesse of defence, which is stronger then them selues. Was not that [...], that vniuersal ar­mour or complete harnes, which he exhorteth other men to put on as sufficient to withstande all the as­saultes of the diuell, Eph. 6. sufficient for him selfe without the signe of the crosse But seing y ^e Apostle there des­cribeth y ^e whole armor of God, whereof the signe of y ^e crosse is not piece. It is certaine, that it is no armour meete for the defence of a Christian man: wherefore your fabling Abdias, and counterfait Clement can carry no credit with wise & learned Christians. Nor yet the examples of Antony, Martin, Donatus, & Paula reported of credible writers, yet no Euangelists, which armed themselues with the signe of the crosse, doeth either force or moue vs to imitatiō, further then they had warrant for their doing out of the holy scrip­tures.

Where M. Calfhill sayeth, that the diuel delighted in the signe of the crosse, & fayned him selfe to be a­frayd [Page 175] of it, that the heremit might runne to that sory succour, and men put more affiance in it. He meaneth that the diuel delighted in the superstitious opinion of it: for otherwise he doth neither feare nor loue the signe of the crosse of it selfe: for if it had beene so terrible to the diuell as Martial and others do thinke, Saint Paul would not haue left it out of the complet harnes of God, whereby all the deceites & fiery darts of the diuell are withstood.

And although the elder and better age vsed and re­ceiued that signe tolerably, yet considering the sham­full abuse thereof, it ought now of right & conscience to be condemned, as M. Calfhill sayeth. But Martiall wil none of that, for things good of their own nature, must not be taken away not condemned for y ^e abuse. Very true, but who will graunt him, that the signe of the crosse is good of it selfe? It is as much as may be borne, to grant it to be a thing indifferent. And wher­as Martial wil acknowledge none abuse of that signe, what else should we say, but who is so blind as he y ^t wil not see? Concerning the authoritie of the Epistle of Epiphanius translated by S. Hierome, & his fact in rending a vaile wherein was painted an image, as it were of Christ, or some saint, &c. I will referre y ^e rea­der to mine answere to D. Sanders booke of images, Cap. 4. or according to the error of his print, Cap. 3. where he shal see all Martials cauils shaken of, except one, which I thinke no man euer espyed before this wylye lawyer, and that is of the words, quasi, hauing an image as it were of Christ or some saint, but not an image of Christ or of some saint in deede, for then he woulde not haue rent it, but perhaps in was an image of Iupiter, or Hercules, &c. But vnder cor­rection of Master Vsher, this is but a quasy argu­ment that is grounded vpon quasi, as though it should signifie always a thing y ^t is not true, but as it were so & yet not so. For Cicero y ^t knew y ^e nature of y ^e word quasi as wel as Martial, vseth it otherwise, Illos qui oīa incer [...] [Page 176] dicunt, quasi desperatos aliquos relinquamus. As for them that saye: all things are vncerteine let vs leaue, as mē past hope. Wil Martiall say they were not past hope in deede? S. Marke sayeth, that Christ did teache quasi potestatem habens, Mar. 1. as one that had authoritie, wil he say he had not authoritie in deede. Iohn. 1. S. Iohn saith of Christ, who haue seene his glory, quasi vnigeniti, as the glorye of the onely begotten sonne of God. Let Martiall saye with the Arrians, he was but quasi vnigenitus, as it were the onely begotten sonne of God, and not he in deede.

Againe, he sayeth, Cùm fecisset quasi flagellum, when he had made as it were a scourge, master Vsher will conster it so, that was not a scourge in deede, because he sayeth, as it were a scourge. But Martiall will still vrge the fact of Paula in worshipping the crosse of Christ, vntill it be shewed out of Epiphanius by bet­ter euidence then yet is shewed, that he woulde haue no crosse, no crucifixe, nor image in the Church. A mā would thinke this were sufficient euidence, when hee sayeth: Cùm ergo hoc vidissem in ecclesia Christi, contra au­thoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, &c. Wherefore, when I sawe this, that in the Church of Christe did hang an image of a man, contrary to the authoritie of the scriptures, I rent it, &c. Further eui­dence out of Epiphanius you may see in the place be­fore cited.

Martiall would haue vs make a Kalender of Chri­stian men, that refused to blesse them selues with the crosse, which were [...] infinite matter, seeing from the Apostles vnto the Valentinian heretikes it is not read, that any such estimation was of the crosse, y ^t it should be any blessing or confirmation. Master Calfhils rule, that we must liue not after examples but after lawes, meaning, not followe what soeuer hath beene done by good men, but whatsoeuer was well done, according to the lawe of God, Martiall reiecteth vpō vaine, foolish, and friuolous reasons, as that some ex­amples [Page 177] are to be followed, that the lawe serueth not for a iust man, that custome must be followed where lawe faileth, &c. Beside that he slaundereth Luther, as one that would haue all lawes and orders of Princes put awaye. Againe, whereas M. Calfhill sheweth that the fathers taught other things more oft & more ear­nestly then the vse of the crosse. As that it was a wic­kednesse to fast on Sonday, or to pray on our knees, beside the oblations on birthdayes, milke, and hony, with the communion giuen to infants, &c. Martiall answereth, these are abrogated by the church: this is not. But seing none of them hath ben in worse abuse then this custome of crossing, this ought to be abro­gated of euery church, as well as those. But whereas Martiall compareth the doctrine of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11. for couering or vncouering of men & womens heads, and the decree of y ^e Apostles for bloud and strangled, Act. 15. with those abrogated customes, he doth verye lewdly, for beside y ^t the authoritie of y ^e one is certeine, the other vncerteine, & of some forged: the doctrine of S. Paul as he there deliuereth it, is perpetuall, & the decree of the Apostles was neuer ment of them, but to be temporall, for auoiding offence of the Iewes. As touching the credit of the olde writers who had all their errors, we like well y ^e councell of Vincentius Ly­rinensis, y ^t we should stil haue recourse for triall, to y ^e most ancient, in which we must needes accompt y ^e wri­tings of the Apostles, both of moste antiquitie and of greatest authoritie. Wherefore seeing the manner of blessing with the crosse is not found either in the wri­tings of the Apostles, or in the most auncient fathers, Iustinus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, by Vincen­tius councel, we may iustly accompt it for a corrupt custome, crept into the church, either by aemulation of heretikes, or in contention against the Paganes. But Martiall slaundereth vs, and the Apollogie of the church of England, that the chiefe cause of our sepera­tion from the Church of Rome, was the euill life of [Page 178] the gouernours thereof, and vainly spendeth time to proue out of Ciprian, Augustine, and Caluine, that for that cause wee ought not to separate our selues, whereas we are departed out of Babylon, not so much for the abhominable life thereof, as for the corrupt & false doctrine taught therein, by which it is shewed to be y ^e Synagogue of sathan, & not the church of Christ. And here Martiall hudleth vp a nomber of quotati­ons for the authoritie of the Pope and of the church of Rome, which seeing they haue beene all often times answered, and by mee also in aunswere to D. Saunders rocke, it were folly here to stand vpon thē.

But he will not be counted a falsifier of Tertulli­an, when of diuerse copyes and impressions he wil­fully chooseth the worst, that he might wring it to his purpose, although the matter be not worth the strife about it. For Tertullians iudgement of traditi­on without scripture, in that place is corrupt: for Mar­tiall him selfe confesseth, that a tradition vnwritten should be reasonable and agreable to the scriptures, and so he saith, the tradition of blessing with y ^e crosse is, because the Apostles by the holy ghoste deliuered it. But who shall assure vs thereof? Tertullian & Basil are not sufficient warrant for so worthie a matter, see­ing S. Paul leaueth it out of the vniuersall armour of God. But where M. Calfhill distinguisheth traditions into some necessary, as necessarily inferred of the scri­pture, some contrary to the worde, and some indiffe­rent, Martial like an impudent Asse, calleth on him to shewe in what scripture, doctor, or councell he fin­deth this distinction of traditions. As though a man might not make a true distinction in disputation, but the same must be founde in so many wordes, in scrip­ture, doctor, or councell, when he him selfe cannot de­ny, but y ^e distinction is true, & euery part to be founde in y ^e scriptures, doctors & councels. But the examples please him not, for the couering of women, and their silence in the church are taught in expresse words of [Page 179] scripture, and therfore are not necessarily inferred of scripture. Therefore there is one lye, quod Martiall. Who would think such a block worthie of answere? which thinketh a trueth may not be inferred of the expresse words of scripture, when of nothing it can be better in ferred. Againe, he calleth it another lye, y ^t S. Paul pro­ueth his tradition by y ^e scripture, for he bringeth no text nor sentence of scripture to proue y ^t women shuld be couered in the church. But Martiall doth not onely belye M. Calfhill, but also slaunder S. Paul, seeing he alledgeth out of Genesis, both y ^t the man is the image & glory of God, & y ^t the woman was made for man.

The examples of the second sort, as Latine seruice, worshipping of images &c. Martiall will not allowe, but the scripture is plaine, to them that haue eyes, and be not like the images whome they worship.

Againe he liketh not that there should be any limi­tation in obseruing traditions of the church in things indifferent, as if cases of necessitie & of offence might not make a limitation without contempt of the chur­ches authoritie. But he will learne, in which kinde of traditions we place the signing with y ^e crosse, & y ^e rest named by Basil. I aunswere, y ^t marking with the crosse in some respect, as it was first vsed of y ^e old fathers, is of the third kind, but as it is vsed of you Papists, for a blessing & sanctifying, of y ^e second kind. If it be tolde him, y ^t the fathers builded some strawe & wood as wel as gold & siluer, he saith those wordes were meant of maners & not of doctrine, wherin he sheweth himself a profound student in S. Pauls Epistles. Yet if y ^e fathers haue any priuate opinions, or y ^t some bastarde bookes be intituled to them, yet wil he follow y ^e rule of S. Ba­sil, Hom. con. Sabel. Dominus, &c. Our Lord hath so taught, the Apostl [...] haue preached, the fathers haue obserued, the mar­tirs haue confirmed, It shall suffice to say, I haue beene so taught? I would he would or could follow this coun­cel, but he leaueth out al y ^e rest, & taketh but the taile: We haue been so taught.

[Page 180] But if he will haue vs to allowe blessing with y ^e crosse, let him begin with the head, and shewe where our Lorde hath taught it, the Apostles preached it, and so forth continue his gradation to the end. But hither­to he hath beene hammering of tags to his two tag­lesse pointes, as M. Calfhil nameth them, and now he commeth to worke vpon his third point: that a crosse was set vp in euery place. And firste he goeth to worke with the authoritie of Martialis, one of the seuentie two disciples of Christ, which was as surely a disciple of Christ, as a kinsman of his. Of whose credite I haue spoken before, & therefore wil not here repeate it.

Wheras he is accused of falsifying of Athanasius, he coloureth the matter by following two or three corrupt prints, wilfully refusing the true edition & best reformed according to y ^e moste auncient written coppies. His leauing out of words material, which he cannot excuse by the print, he defendeth by his writ­ten coppie, and layeth the fault on the printer. Better a badd excuse then none at all, lawyers haue manye such shiftes.

But the place is Quaestion. 16. ad Antioch. ‘ Quare cre­dentes omnes ad crucis imaginem cruces facimus, lanceae verò sanctae, aut arundinis, aut spongiae figuras nullas conficimus; cum tamen haec tam sint sancta quàm ipsa crux? Responsio. Figuram quidem Crucis ex duobus lignis compingentes confici­mus, vt si quis infidelium id in nobis reprehendat, quod vene­remur lignum, possimus duobus inter se disiunctis lignis, & crucis dirempta forma, ea tanquam in [...]ilia ligna reputare, & infideli persuadere▪ quod non colamus lignum, sed quòd crucis typum veneremur: in lancea verò aut spongia vel arundine nec facere hoc, nec ostendere possumus. Why do all wee beleeuers make crosses after the image of the crosse, but we make no figures of the holy speare, or of the reede, or of the sponge, whereas yet these are as holy as the crosse it selfe? The answere. Wee make in deede the figure of the crosse by putting two pieces of wood together, that if any of the infidels repre­hende [Page 181] that in vs that wee worship wood, wee may by seperating the two pieces of wood and breaking the forme of the crosse, accompt them as vnprofitable pieces of wood, and persuade the infidell, that wee worship not wood, but that wee worship the type of the crosse: but in the speare, or sponge, or reede, we can neither do not shewe this.’

Here Martiall obserueth, that all Christian men made crosses, yet can he not proue that they did set these crosses in the church: but that they vsed them in other places, it appeareth by that they were made so, as the infidels seeing them, they might be taken a­sunder. But I will obserue, that seeing they made no images of the reede, sponge, speare, &c. they made no images of Christes passion, which the Papistes ac­compt so profitable.

Secondly, Martiall vrgeth, that they worshipped the type of the crosse, which Master Calfhill sayeth is not the figure, but the thing represented by y ^e crosse. And verily the Gentyles should haue as great cause to reprehend them for worshipping the shape of a crea­ture▪ as for worshipping the creature it selfe. Where­fore, except Martiall will saye, the Christians made a fonde excuse, let him not play the foole so magnifi­cally, in cauilling vppon Master Calfhils interpreta­tion, when he cannot otherwise reasonably defende the authors meaning.

Finally, let Martiall remember that the speare, sponge, & reede, be as holy as the crosse it self, & ther­fore in respect of no holynesse thereof the crosse was made rather then the rest, but because the fourme thereof being easily broken in two stickes, the Gen­tyles might acknowledge, that the Christians made y ^e crosse neither for the wood, nor for y ^e fashion, but for a remēbrāce of Christ crucified, whō they worshiped.

From the crosse he digres [...]eth a while to y ^e marri­age of vowed priests, complaining that Innocentius & Siricius, popes of Rome are slandered, where they are [Page 182] saide to take marriage for a satisfying of lustes of the flesh, where they speake only of the marriage of Prie­stes that had vowed to liue vnmarried, which is false, for they speake of Priestes that were married, lying with their owne wiues. ‘ Plurimos enim sacerdotes atque Le­uitas post longa consecrationis suae tempora tam de coniugibus proprijs quàm etiam de [...]urpi coitu sobolem didicimus procreasse. For we haue learned that many Priestes of Christe and Leuites long time after their consecration haue begot­ten children, as well of their owne wiues, as of filthie copulation.’ Thus do they account both faultes alike. Againe, the reasons they bring, are such as concerne marriage generally: That they which be in the flesh can not please God &c. reade the Epistle of Syricius ad Himeriū Tarraconen▪ & Innocentius ad Victricium, which are all one word for word, concerning this matter. But where Martiall taketh vpon him to charge vs with a statute in force against the marriage of Priests in Eng­lād, vnrepealed, he is miscōceiued. For we haue a clause of a statute in force, that all marriages lawfull by the lawes of God, shall be accounted lawfull by the lawes of the realme. So long therefore as the marriage of Priestes may be approued by the lawe of God, there is no daunger in the lawe of the realme. Concerning the filthie liues of the Popish Cleargie, it is needlesse to speake, being so well knowne in the world, & yet it is not their wicked life that separateth vs from their Sy­nagogue, but their hereticall doctrine. But returning againe to the crosse, he burdeneth M. Calfhil with a lye, bicause he saide, that Martial hauing named hou­ses, markets, wildernesses, highwayes, seas, ships, Gar­ments, parlors, walles, windowes, armor, &c. where the crosse should be, nameth not the Church, whereas a little before, he cited out of Chrysostome, that it was vsed in the holy table at y ^e holy mysteries. But Chry­sostome saith not, that the crosse was erected, and set vp or painted in any Church, although he say, the fi­gure thereof was vsed. Wherfore here is no lye proued. [Page 183] Touching the saying cited out of Augustine Serm. 130. de tempore, although the authoritie is not greatly to be regarded of those Sermons, yet admit it were Augu­stines in deede, M. Calfhil saith truly, that he speaketh neither of Martials materiall nor mysticall crosse, but of the death of Christ, and the crosse whereon he suffe­red, as al the discourse of that Sermon declareth: Before the crosse was a name of condemnation, nowe it is made a mat­ter of honour: before is stoode in damnation of a curse, nowe it is set vp in occasion of saluation. This nowe Martiall would either craftily or impudently referre to Augustines time, which is spoken of the time of Christes passion, when the crosse was set vp in occasion of saluation, and not an idol therof in Augustines time.

He complaineth, that to an other place of Augu­stine, wherein mention is made of the signe of y ^e crosse, nothing is saide, where nothing needeth, when it is cō ­fessed, that the signe of the crosse was vsed in his time. And concerning Constantines crosse, we haue spoken alreadie sufficiently. To conclude therefore, here is no­thing replied in this article, to proue that the Apostles and Fathers of the first Church did blesse them selues with the signe of the crosse, although the Fathers of latter time vsed to marke them selues with that signe, and counselled others so to doe. Neither is there any thing but the forged newe found Martiales Epistle, which is worse then nothing, to proue that the signe of the crosse in the first age of the Church was vsed by the Apostles, or their immediate successors before the dayes of Valentinus the heretike.

The sixt Article.

That diuers holy men and women got them little pieces of the crosse, Martial. and inclosed them in gold, &c.

It is confessed, Fulke. that diuers made great account to haue little pieces of the crosse, to inclose them in gold, [Page 184] and hang them about them, but their superstition is reproued both by Hieronyme and Chrysostome. To Hierome Martial aunswereth, that he reproued not the hauing of those pieces, but the confidence put in them, as the Pharisees did in their Phylacteries hanged vpon their bodies, and not printing the lawe in their harts. Be it so, but what accounteth he the hauing of them? euen the strayning of a Gnat, Culicem liquantes & camelū deglu [...]ientes lib. 4. cap. 23. But in other places (saith Mar­tial) he wisheth him selfe to kisse the wood of the crosse. Apol. 3. cont. Ruff. This was a small matter, and yet it was more then hauing a little piece of the crosse, for he speaketh of his visiting the places of the death, buriall, and birth of Christ, in which he might take more occasion of meditation vpon the mysteries of our redemption. To Chrysostome, which counted it impietie in certaine priestes, that hanged Gospells about them, and pieces of the coat and haire of Christ, he maketh like answere, alledging out of his Demostr. ad Gentiles, that all the world desired to haue y ^e crosse, and euery man coueted to haue a litle piece of it, & to inclose it in golde, &c. and whereas M. Calfhil aun­swereth, that this was no praise of the parties, but a pra­ctise of the time▪ Martial replyeth, that it was a praise of the parties, repeating what Chrysostome doth write in commendation of the signe of the crosse &c. where­as in deed Chrysostome speaking of the matter in que­stion, onely sheweth what was the affection of Chri­stians to the crosse, which was sometime the wood of condemnation. Which affection, although in some it were immoderate, yet Chrysostomes reason against y ^e Gentiles, should not turne him to perpetuall shame, (as Martial saith) for he proueth that Christ was God, in that he had wrought so great a conuersion vnto the faith, that no man was nowe ashamed of the signe of the crosse, which before was a token of condemnation. To conclude, where Martiall abuseth the wordes of Christ: Haec oportet facere &c. These things ought to [Page 185] be done, the other not omtted, to proue that the fact of hauing these pieces of the crosse, and inclosing them in golde, was good, he must either bring the lawe of God, as the Pharisees did for tything of Mynt and A­nise, or else we can not be persuaded that such estima­tion of pieces of wood is good and godly.

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 y ^e 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? Haue we not y ^e 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 haue 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 [Page 186] 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 vpon the Epistles, that go­eth vnder 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 haue it pro­cessionis, as some printed bookes haue, 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 vnto the article. Sozomenus lib. [...]. ca. 8. sheweth, y ^t 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 y ^e crosse, which Socrates li. 6. ca. 8. sheweth, did serue to carie waxe candles or torches, burning vpon [Page 187] them, to giue 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 y ^e 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 y ^e Chur­ches. The quarrell of the foure lyes I passe ouer, let the Reader compare both their Bookes, and iudge whe­ther Martiall haue 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 haue alowed the other. But you light them not as Heathē men, of whom Lactan­tius speaketh, thinking God to be in darkenes, and to haue 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, [Page 188] as you haue record & witnes out of Eusebius, Athana­sius, &c. In deede there is great reason, because they had candels light in the night you wil haue them in y ^e day: but of light I wish the reader to look more in my refu­tation of Rastals confutation, to y ^e 33. leafe of his book. After this foloweth a vain discourse, to proue y ^t we are heretiks, because we haue departed from the vnitie of the Church, from the Cleargie, from the bishop of Rome, &c. Al which is false, for we haue 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 haue 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, haue the Scrip­ture for their warrant, and the primitiue Church for their witnesse.

His rayling vpon 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 vs 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 [Page 189] & the people were well prepared before his comming, by the Queene and the bishop that attended vpon 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 haue him cleare of it. But seeing the threatening of Augustine is agreed vpon, 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 haue to excuse him to feede the eyes of them that neuer heard of Christ, with y ^e 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 haue not like pre­tence may not vse like example. Whereas Maister [Page 190] 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 vs, 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 haue 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 vpon the virgine Marie, or any creature. Saint Paule saith Rom. 10. ver. 14. How shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued. By whiche it is euident, that none ought, nor can in true faith be called vpon, but he in whom we beleeue, and it is ido­latrie to beleeue in any but in God only, wherefore it is idolatrie to call vpon 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 onely 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 [Page 191] of Carolus magnus against images, you imagine to haue beene written by Caluine, or Illiricus, or some other late protestant: but of the credite and antiquitie thereof, I haue 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 haue bene matter of idolatrie, he saith it is no cause, why translating of o­ther Saintes bodies should not be permitted. Be­cause God will haue mercie, vpon whome he will haue mercie, 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 [Page 192] the same answere might be well made to superstitious Papistes, who haue 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 haue 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.

The eight Article.

That many strange and wonderful miracles were wrought by the signe of the crosse. Martial.

If this article were granted in manner and fourme as it is set downe and meant by the author: Fulke. namely, that God by the signe of the crosse hath wrought mi­racles, yet doeth it not followe, that the signe of the crosse is nowe to be vsed of vs, nor that we should re­pose any confidence therein. By the rodde of Mo­ses great miracles were wrought, yet was neither the signe of that rod to be esteemed, nor hope of health to be placed in it, nor the rodde it selfe to be worship­ped.

The Apostles by annointing with oyle, Marke. 6. did worke [Page 193] great miracles, yet neither the signe of that annoin­ting is of vs to be vsed, nor the oyle to be worshipped: wherefore if God to shewe the vertue of him that was crucified, hath wrought miracles, by the crosse, or signe thereof, it followeth not, that the signe is still to be vsed, or the crosse honoured, but he that was cru­cified. Whereas M. Calfhil saide, that miracles are done by the deuil and his ministers, although Martial cannot deny it, yet he saith it followeth not that all miracles, or those of the crosse were done by the deuil. Wheras M. Calfhils meaning is plaine, that we ought not to beleeue all thinges that are commended to vs by miracles, but to examine all doctrine by the word of God, against which we must beleeue no miracles, no prophets, no Angels, Gal. 1. But whereas Martial labo­boureth to proue, that miracles done by signe of the crosse, were done by God, he should first haue proued substantially, that miracles were done in deede by the crosse, and after prooued, by what power they were done. For we may not beleeue euery reporte of mi­racles, especially when they are alledged to confirme false doctrine. Let vs therefore consider the first mi­racle which he rehearseth of the crosse of Christ, that Helena found: if she found any, for Eusebius that knew Helena, and speaketh much of her commenda­tion, and of her doinge at Hierusalem, as I take it, would not haue concealed such a notable inuention, if any such had bene, in his story, and therefore the note in his Chronologie seemeth to bee a late ad­dition. But to the miracle, that the crosse was discerned from the other two by a sicke Gentle­woman vppon whome it was laide, wherevppon as soone as it touched her, she recouered. This report of Rustinus seemeth to be vncertaine, first because Am­brose sayeth, the crosse was knowen by the title, without speaking of any miracle: secondly, because the reporte of other writers is, that the miracle was of a dead woman, and some of two dead persons, wherof [Page 194] to see more I referre the reader to mine answere to D. Sanders booke of Images cap. 13. or 12. Concerning the rest of the Miracles, reported by Paulinus, Epiphanius, Augustine and others, let thē haue such credite as their authors deserue, which is not to build faith or doctrine vpon them, or their writinges, let it be that some were true and wrought by God, yet followeth it not, that al that haue bene since reported in the Popishe Legendes were either true or not wrought by the deuil: where­about Martiall maketh much wrangling, but neither affirmeth nor concludeth any thing vniuersally. None vse more crossing then witches and coniurers, the de­uil seemeth to be afraide to come neare them, certaine strange works are brought to passe by them Let Mar­tial affirme any vertue included in the crosse, or signe thereof absolutely, & then we may deale with him ac­cordingly For while he telleth vs what may be done by faith & y ^e signe of y ^e crosse, and what God hath done by good men with that signe, it is nothing to the au­thorizing of that signe, seeing the deuil by credulitie in wicked men hath don the like by the same signe.

And this is a true position of M. Calfhil, though Martiall will not vnderstand it. That it is not a suffici­ent proofe to make a thing good, or to shew it to be good, (because he cauilleth like a calfe a [...] the worde of making▪) to say that miracles were wrought by it. Martial asketh first, whether the miracles of Christ were not a sufficient proofe of his diuine power? Where he flyeth from the position, which speaketh not of the principal efficient cause, out of a ceremonie, a meane, or instrument. More perti­nently he asketh of the hemme of Christs coate. Saint Paules napkins, whether they had not a vertue by his body. I answere no. No more then Iudas lippes that kissed Christe, and Peters shadowe, which could neither be holy, nor efficient of any thing, because it was no­thing but the priuation of the light by comming be­tweene of his body. So I say of coates, napkins, ashes of Martyrs, and signe of the crosse, if any miracles were [Page 195] done by meanes of them, they are not thereby holy, neither haue they any vertue in them. The Lord hath giuen vs a generall rule to examine all miracles, and miracle workers, by the doctrine they teache. Deut. 13.

‘If there arise among you a prophet or dreamer of dreames (and giue thee a signe or wonder, and y ^• signe, & the wonder which he hath told thee, come to passe) if he say let vs goe after other Gods which thou hast not knowen, and let vs serue them: thou shal not hear­ken vnto the words of that prophet, or vnto that drea­mer of dreames: for the Lord your God proueth you, to know whether you loue the Lord your God with al your heart, and with all your soule. Ye shal walk after the Lord your God and feare him, and kepe his cōman­dements, and hearken vnto his voyce, and ye shall serue him, and cleaue vnto him.’By this scripture we are taught to examine all miracles, whether they tende to the honour of the only true God and the maintenance of his true worshippe according to his worde: whiche Martiall him selfe in a manner confesseth: saying, that miracles done by heretikes are not able to commende a thing. But he findeth great fault with Maister Calf­hil for coupling the generation of a childe in adulte­ry or feeding by stollen breade, to be miracles, because they be not extraordinarily miracles and yet he can not deny but they be great wonders, and the reason of the meanes is all one in both.

Nowe let vs see howe he aunswereth those three reasons of Maister Calfhils, why miracles make not for the crosse. And first he aunswereth to a question, Why the durt in the streete by whiche Christe wrought a mi­racle, should not be honoured as well as the crosse on the altar? He aunswereth because the crosse was an instrument by which all the worlde was saued. So was Iudas, so was Pilate. The second, He saith the crosse is a liuely re­presentation of Christes death. Nay a dombe and dead i­doll which is good for nothing. Abacuc. 2. The thirde The crosse is effectuous euer since. A deed efficient.

[Page 196] The crosse is commaunded of God to be made and vsed by diuers Reuelations from heauen. Nay by the diuell from hell, and yet if Angels from heauen had taught the crosse to be made and vsed as another Gospell, as it is accounted of the Papists, as great as circumcisiō was of y ^e Iewes, not preached by the Apostles, not conteyned in the Scriptures, we might safely accurse them.

But now to the reasons: the first is: Why should not such external meanes as Christ and his Apostles vsed, & scrip­ture mentioneth, be had in administration, rather then the idle deuice of man, of which there is no lawfull president. Martiall answereth, the crosse is no idle deuise, but a tradition of the Apostles, whereof they haue lawful presidentes. But seeing no president is lawfull to builde our faith vpon, but the holy scriptures, which the Papistes haue not for their crosse, the reason standeth vntouched.

The second reason, If miracles were done by the signe of the crosse, yet not onely by it, therefore the crosse should not only be magnified without the rest. Martial affirmeth that hee would not haue the crosse magnified without the rest, as prayer and faith. How doeth he then magnifie the crosse in Iulians storie, which was without prayer and faith?

The third reason. If miracles were done by the crosse, yet it should not be had in estimation, except all other thinges by which miracles were wrought, as the he [...] of Christes garment, the spitle and clay, the shadowe of Peter and napkins of Paule, were likewise honoured and esteemed. Martial aunswereth, this is but his assertion, for which he hath neither scrip­ture, councel, nor Doctor. As though an argument A paribus, were not good except the conclusion were ex­pressed in Scriptur, doctor, or councel. Yet he replieth, that the crosse is the principall meane, by which mi­racles haue ben wrought. But the Scripture is against that, for Christ wrought no miracle by the signe of y ^• crosse. Nay I slander him, for he reasoneth not ad idem, but the crosse is the cheefe and principal instrumente of our redemption, yet not holier then the speare, the [Page 197] reede, and the sponge, as Athanasius affirmeth Ad Anti­och. que. 16. But euen the hemme, the spettle, and clay, if he had them, Martial would honor, worship & esteeme for his sake whose pretious body they touched. Then let him worship the sunne that touched him with his beams of light, or if that be too farre of, let him wor­ship Iudas lippes that kissed him, if he can come by them. Concerning the person of Helena, I would wish nothing to be spoken of her, but to her honour, except in case where her honour should be an hinderance of the honor of Christ. Martial to iustifie her in al things, raileth vpon M. Calfhil, for charging her with super­stition as though he had bene the first y ^t had so written of her, when it is reported of her that she was vs (que) ad su­perstitionem pia, deuout euen to superstition. And yet her superstition, appeareth not so great in any thing, as in this supposed inuention of the crosse.

The varietie in time that is in the witnesses of the inuention of the crosse, the blasphemous beast is not ashamed to compare with the apparence of varietie which is in the Euangelistes, where in deede there is none, wheras this discord can not be reconciled. Yet will he not haue the tale discredited for the discorde in time, as though there were none other discorde. The manifest contradiction that is betweene Ruffi­nus, saying, Titulus non satis evident [...]r dominici prodeba [...] signa patibuli, The title did not shewe euidently the signe of our Lordes gibbet. And Ambrose saying, Titulo crux salutaris patuit, by the title the healthfull crosse was manifestly knowen. This contradiction I say, he denyeth to bee any, affirming that a simple Logitian would proue it to be none. Thinking that s [...]tis euidenter euidently inough, would excuse the matter, as though we knewe not what patet doeth signifie, as well as Maister vsher of Winchester. That a shippe would not carrie the peeces of the crosse that are shewed in so many places, he counteth it an impu­dent lye of Caluine, whome he rayleth vpon like a [Page 198] ruffian, and slaundereth like a diuel. Yet Erasmus af­firmeth the same in his Peregrinat. relig. erg. And he that will beleeue neither of them both, let him con­sider beside so many whole crosses as are shewed in steede of that one, and of great boardes y ^t are kept in many places as part of it, so many thousand churches & Abbeys as either now shew or haue shewed chips & pieces of it, & he shall not think their report to be in credible. The talk of the nayles which were but three at y ^e first, & al bestowed at the time of y ^e inuention, yet are now multiplyed to 13. or 14. which bewrayeth an horrible impudencie in the Popish idolaters. Martiall refuseth as impertinent, yet will he not confesse y ^e for­gerie, which is a token of a wicked & diuelish consci­ence. Where M. Calfhill sayeth that miracles were not done by the crosse to establish a worshipping or hauing of it, Martiall requireth proofe by scriptures, Councels or Doctors. I reason thus a paribus out of the scripture, myracles were done by oyle, shadowe, & other things, not to establish a worshipping or ha­uing of them: the like reason is of myracles done by the crosse. Beside that y ^• scripture is plentiful in chal­lenging all honour & worship to the author, & not to the meanes or instruments. Peter and Iohn, meanes of the healing of the lame man refused all honour and worship in respect of his healing, Act. 3. vers. 12. yet were they other manner of meanes then y ^e crosse euer was in doing of myracles.

That M. Calfhill sayeth, myracles teach vs not to do the like, but to beleeue the like. Martiall sayeth, they teach vs to do the like if we may: and he proueth it by him that teacheth that almes couereth sinne, who thereby teacheth to do almes, &c. Thus the wise man compareth miracles & men together, facts & doctrin; act & possibilitie, euen as right as a rammes horne. But how shal we come by this power to worke mira­cles by the signe of y ^e crosse? for to assay without assu­rance of Gods power, is to tempt God. Therefore wee [Page 199] may no more crosse vs against diuels, because God hath sometime chased thē away by y ^• signe, then wee may annoynt blind mens eyes with clay, to proue if they will see after it, because Christ wrought a myra­cle by y ^• meane, which as Martial saith, teacheth vs to do the like if we may. What estimatiō Paulinus a su­perstitious man had in his piece of the crosse, which was perhaps a piece of another tree, then euer came in Iewry. Wee haue not to followe him in his follye. That myracles wrought of holy men by the signe of the crosse, &c. is not a sufficient reason to proue that y ^e figne of the crosse should be had, kept, set vp, and ho­noured, I haue alreadie proued out of the scripture by y ^e like or equall, & yet it is against reason, when we deny your arguments whose consequence you ought to proue, y ^• we should be driuē to proue that they fol­low not. Where M. Calfhill sayeth, y ^• myracles onely ought not, or may not cōmend a thing, you pick qua­rels to him without cause, obiecting the miracles of Christ, who tooke witnesse not only of his miracles, but also of y ^e holy scriptures. When you haue vrged the miracle done by y ^e signe of y ^e crosse out of Epipha­nius, as much as you can, yet proueth it not y ^e honou­ring and setting vp of y ^e signe of y ^e crosse in these days, as M. Calfhill telleth you, seing y ^• we liue not among Turkes or Sarazens, y ^• we need to haue any such signe whereby we might be knowen to be worshippers of Christ. But you would faine learne, what if a Portin­gal or one of y ^e new conuerted Ilāds of India, cōming by chance into England, of which he neuer heard be­fore, & seing neither images nor crosses in church nor streate, how he should knowe in whome wee beleeue. And I would learne of you, what skilleth it, if such a man as neuer came here, nor euer by any likelyhood shall come hither, yet supposed to be driuen on a boarde out of India into Englande, what skilleth it I say, if he know not in whom we beleue, and so depart as wise as he came? What remedy but we must haue al [Page 200] places filled with images & crosses, for such a man to knowe what we holde of, who shalbe neuer the better thereby, nor the worse if he know not. But you think that happily strangers of Greece, Cōstantinople, Iew­ry, & India, may come to our coastes, and therfore wee ought to haue the signe of the crosse in churches, cha­pels, & high wayes, to signifie of whome we hold. We haue not many such strangers, but when they arryue we haue bookes of the holy scripture in Greeke, He­brue, Chaldee, Syrian, Arabike, Sclauonian tongues, in which they may be instructed that are desirous to vn­derstand what religion we professe. The Lorde God thought it sufficient to haue his lawe written vppon great stones, at the entrance into the holy land, to let all strangers knowe, both whome, & after what man­ner the people of Israell did honour and serue their God. Deut. 27. 3. But as for images and pillers he vt­terly forbad them to set vp any for any vse of religi­on, Deut. 12. 1. & 16. ver. 2.

The ninth Article.

What commoditie euery Christian man hath or may haue by the signe of the Crosse. Martiall.

Whereas M. Calfhil detesteth the Idolatrous coun­cell of Nice the Fulke.. 2. by the example of Ambrose, who abhorred the hereticall councell of Ariminum. Mar­tiall willing to iustifie y ^t rable of Idolators assembled at Nice, wold shew great difference, not only between the councels, but also betwene him & Ambrose, say­ing y ^t he was a catholike bishop acknowledging obe­dience & subiection to the Popes holynes. As though the bishop of Rome in his time, either required such obedience & subiection, or y ^• Ambrose acknowledged any. But concerning that assembly of Nice, and y ^e au­thoritie thereof, how they determined contrary to the worde of God, not onely in the matter of hauing and worshipping of images, but also in other things, I re­ferre [Page 201] y ^e reader to mine answer vnto M. Sanders booke of images, Cap. 15. or 14. Of all y ^t M. Calfhill saith a­gainst that councel of Nice, Martial chooseth but one saying of Germanus to defend, wherin he picketh two quarels against M. Calfhil, one y ^t he should misvnder­stand the saying of Germanus, as though he meant y ^t grace were dispensed by Images, where he sayth: an image is a figuring of holy vertue & dispensation of grace▪ But if grace be not dispensed by images, whether Germa­nus said so or no, I pray you, to what purpose are they set vp in the churches? or what profit may a Christian man haue by the signe of the crosse? when Martial de­nyeth y ^t any grace is dispensed by images. The seconde quarel he picketh is, y ^t M. Calfhill denyeth y ^• the ver­tues of saints can be seen in their images, which could not be seene in their persons. Martial sayth: this rea­son condemneth the scripture as well as images, for the ynke and paper hath no mynde or sense to hold the power of Christ, & vertue of the Apostles, more then images haue. As though the scripture were nothing but ynke & paper, or as though y ^t all things y ^• may be learned & vnderstood by hearing, may be discerned by the eye, which con­ceiueth only bodily shapes of things, & cannot attain to see faith, holines, vertue, &c. wherof no images can be made. When M. Calfhill sayeth: that the image of Mars, or S. George, Venus, or the mother of Christ cannot be discerned asunder. Martial hath nothing to reply, but that we must not suppose to finde any ima­ges among the Christians, but of Christ & his saintes, so that images be wise bookes, which cannot teache their schollers what or whereof they are, but they must learne of the common opinion how to esteeme of them. That images be teachers of pride, auarice, wan­tonnesse, &c. as the Prophet sayeth: they are the do­ctrine of vanitie & lyes, Abac. 2. Martiall sayth blas­phemously, y ^t images giue no more occasion of vices, then the holy scriptures, of which some wicked men take occasion of dronkennes, whoredome, vsury, &c.

[Page 202] But seeing the scripture directly & plainly condē ­neth al these & other vices as occasion is giuē by thē, howsoeuer any is taken by vngodly persons, whereas images which teach no goodnes, but being gorge­ously & whorishly decked with golde & precious stones, otherwise then the saintes delighted, euen as in holy scripture they are counted as stumbling blocks, so they teach men vainly affected, to delight in such things, as they see to please the saints. But Martiall sayeth, that gylded images make men thinke of the ioyes of heauen. O ridiculous fantasie. They may sooner make men thinke of the vanitie of the worlde, to delight in it. But when the holy ghost by y ^e mouth of his Prophets hath determined that images are the doctrine of lying & vanitie, it were lost labour to di­spute any longer what good thinges they can teache, Ier. 10. ver. 8. Abac. 2. ver. 18.

The examples of Ezechias, Iosias, & Salomon, he sayth are brought to no purpose against images amō ­gest Christians. As though it were more lawfull for Christians, then for Israelites to commit idolatrie. But y ^• Christians (saith he) direct their hearts, & offer their prayers to God, & therfore there is no mistrust of ido­latry amongest them. Why Martiall? haue not y ^e Pa­pistes in England made & do they not yet still in o­ther places make vowes to the images that are in such a place and such a place. Do they not trauaile thither, and offer vp both prayers and sacrifice of candels, mo­ney, Iewels and other things vnto the Images? Haue not your idols giuen aunswer? haue they not wagged their heades and lips, &c. O shamelesse dogges & blas­phemous idolaters. The Lord so deal with you as you know in your own consciences y ^• the ignorant people haue made their prayers euen to the stockes & stones, thinking them to haue a life & diuinitie in them: and yet you say, there is no mistrust of idolatrie, lest you should be driuen by exāple of Ezechias, to destroy & break your images, although otherwise they were not [Page 203] against Gods cōmandment, but euen made by his ap­pointment, as y ^e brasen Serpent was. That fond quarell of yours, that Salomon was not abused by images, but by women, I leaue to women to laugh at your vanity, when they reade, that by women he was brought to be an idolater, and worshipper of images.

And euery childe that readeth Chrysostome Hom. 54. in 8. Tom. can vnderstand, that although occasioned by obstinate Iewes, yet he speaketh generally of al ob­stinat minds, whether they be professors of Christiani­ty, or no. ‘ Animo desperato &c. There is nothing worse thē a desperate mind, although he see signes, although mi­racles be wrought, yet he standeth still in the self same frowardnesse.’ For an obstinate sinner that hath profes­sed Christianitie, is no more moued with miracles, and the signe of the crosse, then a Iewe or Pharao was. It hath more colour, but not more trueth, that Athanasi­us ascribeth not all effectes of conuersion of wicked men, &c. wholy and solie to the faith of Christe, when he saith, who hath done this, &c. but the faith of Christ, and signe of the crosse? Martial confesseth, that faith is able to do it w ^tout the crosse, but y ^• God would haue y ^• signe of the crosse common with faith: if ye aske in what scrip­ture God hath reuealed this will, he hath nothing to say. Only he denieth, M. Calfhils exposition of Atha­nasius, that the signe of y ^e crosse was ioined to faith, not as a fellow worker, but as a witnesse & signe of y ^• faith against the Gentiles, bicause he hath neither scripture, Doctor, nor Councel for it. Wherin he lieth shameful­ly, for y ^e scripture shewing, Rom. 3. [...] 28. y ^• faith onely as y ^e instrumēt by which we apprehend Gods mercy & our iustificatiō, by which God purifieth our harts, sufficiently proueth, Act. 15. v. 9 that the signe of the crosse is no worker in these cases.

Chrysostome speaking of our conuersion, &c. saith: ‘ Hom. 14. in Ep. ad Rom. Vnum hoc &c. We haue offered this one only gift of GOD, that we giue credite to him, promising vs thinges to come, and by this onely way we are saued.’ This Doctor ascri­beth all to faith, therefore nothing to the signe of [Page 204] the crosse. Whether the Parisiens approue Erasmus his censure it is not materiall, the censure is true, and ap­proued by as wise and well learned as they.

Touching the next quarell, that Cyrillus acknow­ledgeth it no fault of the Christians, to make the signe of the crosse at their doores, it is very foolish, as all the rest be, for although he defend it as a good deede, and in his time tollerable, yet if any did worship the wood of the crosse, as Iulian charged them, it was a fault, which Cyrillus doth excuse and seeke to couer, but of that matter you may reade more in mine aunswere to D. Sanders booke of images, cap. 4. or 3. after the er­rour of his print.

That S. Basil alloweth images in Churches, he ci­teth his sermon vpon Barlaa [...], where he exhorteth painters to set foorth the valiant conflictes of the mar­tyr by their art, but of setting vp those tables in Chur­ches there is no word. Neither do I perceiue he spea­keth of other Painters then eloquent Rhetoricians. For immediately before he saith. ‘ Quin magnificentioribus [...] ipsius ling [...]is Ced [...]us. Sonantiores doctorum tubas ad illius praeconia aduocemus. Exurgite nunc ô praeclari athleti­cor [...]m gestorum pictores &c. But let vs giue place to more magnificent tongues, vtterers of his praises. Let vs call hether the lowder sounding trumpets of learned men. Arise nowe ô ye noble Painters of the valiant actes of champions &c.’ And it is vsuall among learned men, to compare good Orators to cunning Painters.

The counterfet oration of Athanasius, brought in the idolatrous Councel of Nice, we reiect as a matter forged by heretikes and idolaters. The other Doctors places, whome he quoteth, are all considered and aun­swered in seuerall places of mine aunswere to Doctor Sanders booke of images before mentioned.

Whether an image may be made of Christ, which is both God and man, you shall finde it more at large intreated, in my saide aunswere cap. 7. or 6.

That the crosse in the time of Cyrillus had none [Page 205] image vpon it, it is to be proued by this reason, [...] Iulian would not haue omitted to obiect the wor­shipping of images vnto Christians, which they con­demned in the Heathens, if any images had bene vpon their crosses, which he charged them to haue worship­ped. Concerning the calling of Churches by the name of Saints, we haue spoken alreadie.

That S. Paul ioyneth not pictures with scriptures, to be our instruction and comfort, it is an argument of better force then Martiall hath wit to aunswere. For if any such instruction, comfort, or commoditie had any wayes come to Christians by pictures, he would not haue written, that the scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect, prepared to all good workes, 2. Tim. 3. vers. 17. Articl. 3.

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 vs 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, haue proofe and approba­tion out of the holy scriputres, and are not receiued of vs by the onely 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 [Page 206] 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 euery 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 vnder a cloud of ambiguitie, he shuld haue 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 y ^e [Page 207] crosse was esteemed of the Romaines, that now male­factors were no more punished vpon it, least it should be thought, they were honoured, if they s [...]ffered that kinde of death, which our sauiour Christe died. As a­mong vs, 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 vpon the crosse, the people were likely to haue honoured them for the crosses sake.

Hierome saith, that Paula worshipped lying before y ^e crosse, as though she had seene Christe hanging vpon y ^e crosse, yet saith he not, that she worshipped the crosse. Ambrose saith of Helena, that when she found y ^e 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 vs 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 haue 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 w ^tout 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 [Page 208] speaketh onely 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, vnder God.

That Angels are inferiour to Christ, which worship him, Heb. 1. and are not worshipped againe, Martiall saith, it is an addition vnto 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 y ^e 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 vnto Dauid by Abi­gail, and Nathan, be cleane out of the purpose.

Concerning the worship of Angels, I haue spoken immediately before. Martial slaundereth S. Iohn, that he would haue 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, y ^e brasen serpent, y ^e oxen, and other images in the Temple, you shall finde answered, cap. 5. or. 4. [Page 209] 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 vpon vs 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 vpon 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 vnto 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 haue it faire painted in a table, speake Master Calfe? aunswer if you can? O mightie Martiall, withdrawe your grimme countenance a while, and giue 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 haue sought any thing more to the sufficiencie of his redemption, and their saluation. Secondly, although the sense of hearing be appointed [Page 210] 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 haue an argument to choake vs, of the ceremonie of swearing vpon 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 giue 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 [Page 211] but one God, did not obiuct worshipping of crosses vnto them as Gods.

Against the authoritie of Lactar tius, he bringeth in a verse falsely ascribed vnto 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 haue 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 onely against wo­men, which offered sacrifice to y ^e 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 haue 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 y ^e 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 y ^e Col­lyridiaus that sacrificed to the virgine Marie Haeresis si [...]lachrifica an image making heresie. But least Mar­tial [Page 212] 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 y ^e author, rather then y ^e 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, y ^t 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 y ^e 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 y ^e 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.

[Page 213] 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 haue aunswered before, y ^t he mea­neth no such adoration, as the Papistes giue vnto 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 w ^t idolatrie. For Chrysostomes iudgment of worship­ping y ^e 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 y ^e 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 onely 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 euery Christian man. Martiall saith, he condemneth his doctrine of onely 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 onely faith doth iustifie, we say not, that God re­quireth [Page 214] nothing of a Christian man but faith onely. 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 onely 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 haue 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. [Page 215] 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 [Page 216] 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 onely 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 [Page 217] 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 haue 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 haue 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.