Two Popish Heretics Confuted, Rejoinder · Article 1

Two Popish Heretics Confuted · Rejoinder · Article 1

p. 126The 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 p. 127clyant, 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly 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.Luke 101 John 4Matt 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 vsus, if we giuegive offence.

Finally, y^e Patriarks, Prophets, Apostles, Euāgelists, p. 128Pastors,Ex…. 10. Ioel. 1. Eph. 4.Joel 1Eph 4 and doctors, we all reuerence and heare, as the messengers of God, but so that they approue vntounto vsus 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 hauehave 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 vponupon any auncient writers wordes, which hath not the holy scriptures for his warrant, as M. Cal. sayde, buyldeth vponupon an euill ground. For if an Angell from heauen teach otherwise then the Apostles hauehave preached vntounto vsus, 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 p. 129are 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.Matt 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly worde of God.

p. 130But it would make an horse to breake his halter, to see howe Martiall prooueth out of Augustine, that God teacheth vsus 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 onelyonly resteth the substance of doctrine, and the authoritie of faith, and not in doctours distinctions, Church censures, Popes Canons &c. which hauehave 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 hauehave 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 p. 131yet 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, onelyonly the slaunderers persons I will touche: In saying, that the p. 132fathers 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 hauehave preuailed against his Church. Although M. Calfhill speake of those fathers onelyonly, 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 hauehave 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 giuegive sentence. I thinke there is no Christian man, but abhorreth to reade these blasphemies. But let vsus 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 p. 133the lawe, but vnderunder the lawe: so that if the giuegive 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 hauehave authoritie as Iustices hauehave 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 vntounto, therefore a sufficient Iudge, taking witnesse of the Scriptures, and bearing witnesse vntounto 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 vsus 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, p. 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.Jas 51 John 4Acts 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 onelyonly 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: VponUpon 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 eueryevery 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 p. 135that which he had saide before, that Esaye cap. 49. saith: I will set out myne signe on high to the people, which Hierome vponupon 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly 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: onelyonly this is sufficient for the purpose, that Saint Hierome meaneth not the crosse on the toppe of the steeple, but the passion p. 136of Christ: whereto he exhorteth the people to runne for aide as to a standard of comfort, against the enimie that was comming vponupon 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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, onelyonly 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 p. 137they 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 vponupon 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 onelyonly 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 eueryevery 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, p. 138and keepe me onelyonly 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, foreign, 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 hauehave bene a long speare, in the top whereof a barre went ouerthwart like a crosse to hang the banner vponupon, 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 p. 139of Constantine, and other Christian Emperours which is the Caracter of the name of Christ. Agreeing with the wordes of Eusebius foreign. By which you may see howe ridiculously Martiall and the Papistes looke onelyonly 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 vnderunder 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 vponupon 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 onelyonly his praedecessours, but also his Elders, p. 140wherefore he meaneth y^t not onelyonly his successours, but also his after commers in eueryevery 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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. p. 141But this argument is of authoritie negatiue, quod Martiall. But what argument hauehave 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, eueryevery 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 hauehave written, Lib. 4. cap. 26. De ver… sap.the signe of bloud, that is the signe of the crosse, vponupon which he shed his bloud on their foreheades. But Christ is not saluation to all that hauehave 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? p. 142it 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 hauehave come from Christ, and his Apostles. I hauehave shewed, it came from heretiks. Again God said to Costantine In hoc signo vince. I hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave in some epistles omitted more needefull matters.

As though they were bound to speake of all matters in eueryevery 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 p. 143resembling 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 vntounto vsus, with what eyes the diuelles beholde the crosse, he shall hauehave much a doe to perswade vsus, 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 vponupon 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 p. 144Martiall 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 vsus. 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 vponupon the faithful, to the Princes stampe on the coyne, the comparison is naught, for the signe of the crosse which is vponupon hypocrites, sheweth them not to be Christes seruaunts. Neither did Christ giuegive 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 p. 145would hauehave scripture, whereby the signe of the crosse is forbidden to be vsed, as though eueryevery 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 onelyonly, 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 vponupon the coniurers and tormented them: vnlesse Martiall thinke it was because they lacked the signe of the crosse, which would hauehave made them flie away when the name of Iesus and Paule preuailed not p. 146against 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 onelyonly to the death and passion of Christ, as before is shewed, and more remaineth afterwarde to be shewed.