See here the fface of Rome's renowned ffoe.  
Grave, larned, Fulk, whose worth his works, best show.    

T. STAPLETON and Martial (two Popish Heretics) confuted, and of their particular heresies detected.  
By. D. Fulke, Master of Pembroke hall in Cambridge.  
Done and directed to all those that love the truth, and hate superstitious vanities.  
Seen and allowed.  
AT LONDON, Printed by Henry Middleton for George Bishop.  
ANNO. 1580.   

A catalogue OF ALL SUCH Popish Books either answered, or to be answered, which have been written in the English tongue from beyond the Seas, or secretly dispersed here in England have come to our hands, since the beginning of the Queen's majesties reign.  

1 HArding against the Apology of the English Church, answered by M. jewel, Bishop of Sarum.  
2 Harding against M. jewels challenge, answered by M. jewel.  
3 Harding'S rejoinder to M. jewel, answered by M. Edward Deering.  
4 Coles quarrels against M. jewel, answered by M. jewel.  
5 Rastels return of untruths answered by M. jewel.  
6 Rastell against M. jewels challenge, answered by William Fulke.  
7 Dorman against M. jewel, answered by M. Nowell.  
8 dorman's disproof of M. Nowel's reproof, answered by M. Nowell.  
9 The man of Chester answered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme.  
10 Sanders on the Sacrament in part answered by M. Nowell.  
11 fecknam's Scruples, answered by M. Horn B. of Winchester.  
12 fecknam's Apology, answered by W. Fulke.  
13 fecknam's objections against M. gough's sermon, answered by M. Gough, and M. Laurence Tomson.  
14 Stapletons' counterblast, answered by M. Bridges.  
15 Marshal his defence of the cross, answered by M. Caulfehill.  
16 Fowlers Psalter, answered by M. Samson.  
17 An infamous libel or letter (incerto authore) against the teachers of Gods divine providence and predestination, answered by Master Robert Crowley.  
18 Allens defence of Purgatory, answered by W. Fulke.  
19 Heskins parle●●ent repealed by W. Fulke.  
20 Ristons' chall●ng, answered by W Fulke, & Oliver Carter  
21 Hosius of God's express word translated into English, answered by W. Fulke.  
22 Sanders rock of the Church, undermined by W. Fulke.  
23 Sanders defence of images answered by W. Fulke.  
24 Shaclockes Pearl answered by M. Hartwell.  
25 The hatchet of heresies, answered by M. Bartlet.  
26 Master Euans answered by himself.  
27 A defence of the private Mass answered (by conjecture) by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincoln.  
28 Certain assertions tending to maintain the Church of Rome to be the true and catholic church, confuted by john Knewstub.  
29. Saunder upon the lords supper fully answered by D. Fulke.  
30 Bristow'S motives & demands, answered by D. Fulk.  
31 Stapletons' Differences, & Fortress of the faith, answered by D. Fulke.  
32 Allens defence of priests authority to remit sins, & of the Popish Church's meaning concerning Indulgences, answered by D. Fulke.  
33 Marshals Reply to M. Calfehill, answered by D. Fulke.  
34 Frari●s railing declamation, answered by D. Fulke.   
These Popish treatises ensuing are in answering, If the Papists know any not here reckoned, let them be brought to light, & they shall be examined.  

1 Stapletons' return of untrruthes.  
2 Rastels reply.  
3 Vaux his Catchisme.  
4 Canifius his Catechism translated.    

AN OVERTHROW BY W. Fulke Doctor of Divinity, and Master of Pembroke hall in Cambridge: to the feeble Fortress of Popish faith received from ROME, and lately advanced by THOMAS STAPLETON Student in Divinity.  
THOMAS STAPLETON student in Divinity, translated the 5. Books of Bedes history of the English Church into the English tongue, before which history, it pleased him to set a table of 45. differences, between the Primitive faith of England, continued almost a thousand years, and the late pretended faith of the Protestants, all which we will consider in order.  
First are five Apostolical marks found in their preachers, and wanting (as he saith) in ours.  
1 Augustine (whom he calleth their Apostle) showed the token of his Apostleship, in all patience, signs, and wonders, Bed. 2. lib. 1. c. 30. & 31. l. 2. c. 2. Miracles in confirmation of their doctrine, Protestants have yet wrought none.  
I answer, Peter, Paul, Matthew, james, john, etc. are Apostles to us, sent not from Gregory of Rome, but by Christ himself, out of jewrie, the sign of whose Apostleship, being showed in all patience, signs, and wonders, and our doctrine being the same which we have received of their writings, needeth no other confirmation of miracles, to be wrought by us. If Augustine sent from Gregory a man, have planted any human traditions, and confirmed them by li●ing signs and miracles, as a forerunner of Antichrist, which was even immediately after his time to be openly showed, or if by subtle practice miracles have been feigned to have been done by him, and reported by a credulous man Bede, it hurteth not our cause: 
Gal. Mon.  seeing other writers report him to have been both a proud and a cruel man. And yet we receive all that doctrine which he taught, agreeable to the doctrine of the Apostles of Christ: what so ever he taught beside, we are not to receive it, of an Angel from heaven, much less of Augustine from Rome.  
2 Their Apostles tendered unity, labouring to reduce the Britain's to the unity of Christ's Church. Nothing is more notorious in Protestants then their infamous dissension.  
Augustine in deed laboured to bring the Britons in subjection to himself and to the Church of Rome, which argueth no desire to Christian unity, but favoureth of Antichristian ambition and tyranny, as his cruel threatening executed upon them, did show sufficiently.  
The dissension of the Protestants is not in articles of faith: nor such, but that they are all brethren, that unfeignedly profess the doctrine of salvation: although they descent in the matter of the sacrament, in orders, rites, and ceremonies.  
3 Their Apostles were sent by an ordinary vocation, Protestants have preached without vocation or sending at all, such as the Church of Christ requireth.  
They were sent by Pope Gregory, who had none ordinary authority to send Apostles or preachers into foreign countries. Wherefore if they had any sending, it was extraordinary: of charity, and not of office. The Protestants that first preached in these last days, had likewise extraordinaire calling. But if the calling of the Papists may be counted a lawful calling: they were called of the Popish Church to be preachers and teachers, before they knew or preached the truth of the Gospel.  
4 Their preaching was of God by Gamaliels' reason, because their doctrine continued 900. years, whereas the Protestants faith is already changed from Lutheran to sacramentary, in less than 20. years.  
This reason of Gamaliel would prove Mahomates enterprise to be of God, because it hath likewise continued 900. years: & yet it is false, that the Popish faith hath had so long continuance. For the Papists are departed as from many other points of doctrine, so even from that of the Lords supper, which Augustine planted among the Saxons, unto carnal presence and transubstantiation, the contrary of which were taught by Augustine, as appeareth by the public Saxon Homely, lately translated into English, and imprinted. The diversity of opinions concerning the sacrament, maketh no alteration of faith in them that agree in all other necessary articles. Besides that, it is most false which he saith, that Luther of the Protestants is counted a very Papist.  
5 Their Apostles taught such a faith, as putteth things; by the belief and practice whereof, we may be saved. The faith of the Protestants, is a denial of Popish faith, and hath no affirmative doctrine, but that which Papists had before.  
The Protestants faith affirmeth, that a man is justified by it only. That the sacrifice of Christ's death is our only propitiatory sacrifice. That Christ is our only mediator of redemption and intercession etc. Generally it affirmeth what so ever the Scripture teacheth, and denieth the contrary.  
Then follow 39 differences in doctrine.  
6 Their Apostles said Mass; which the Protestants abhor.  
The Popish Mass was not then all made, therefore they could not say it. They ministered the communion, which Bede and other writers called Missa, they said no private Mass, such as the Papists now defend.  
7 In the Mass is an external sacrifice; offered to GOD the father, the blessed body and blood of Christ himself. lib. 5. cap. 22. This doctrine is expressly reported. This seemeth blasphemy to the Protestants.  
The words of Bede, according to M. Stapletons' own translation, are these, out of the Epislte of Ceolfride to Naitan king of the Pictes. All Christian Churches throughout the whole world (which all joined together make but one Catholic Church) should prepare bread and wine, for the mystery of the flesh & precious blood of that immaculate lamb, which took away the sins of the world, & when all lessons, prayers, rites, and ceremonies used in the solemn feast of Easter, were done, should offer the same to God the father, in hope of their redemption to come. Here is no sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, but of bread and wine for the mystery thereof: no sacrifice propitiatory for sins, but of thanksgiving, and remembrance of the propitiation made by the lamb himself, in hope of eternal redemption. No oblation by by the priest only, but by the whole Church, and every member thereof, as was the oblation of the paschal lamb, whereunto he compareth this sacrifice, interpreting those words of Exod. 12. Every man shall take a lamb according to their families and households, & offer him in sacrifice at the evening. That is to say, (saith Ceolfride) all Christian Churches etc. as before. By which words it is manifest, that the Papists now adays, are departed even from that faith of the sacrament and sacrifice thereof, that Augustine brought from Rome.  
8 This sacrifice is taught to be propitiatory: lib. 4. c. 22. which Protestants abhor.  
There is no mention of propitiatory sacrifice in that chapter, but there is told a tale of a prisoner, that was loosed from his bonds, so oft as his brother which was a Priest, said Mass for his soul, supposing he had been slain in battle: by which many were persuaded, that the wholesome blessed sacrifice, was effectuous to the everlasting redemption and ransoming both of soul and body. So were they worthy to be deceived that would build a doctrine without the word of God, upon the uncertain report of men, who either devised this tale as being false, or else if it were so, could not discern the illusions of Satan, seeking to maintain an error, contrary to the glory of Christ.  
9 Confession of sins made to the priest, lib. 4. cap. 25. & 27. This sacrament of the Protestants is abolished.  
In neither of these chapters is mentioned the Popish auricular confession, as a sacrament necessary to salvation. In the 25. mention is made of one, which being troubled with conscience of an heinous sin, came to a learned priest to ask counsel of remedy, and showed what his offence was. In the 27. chapter it is expressly said, that all the people did openly declare unto S. Cuthbert in confession, the things that they had done. Such confession as either of both these were, the Protestants have not abolished, although they number not confession among the sacraments.  
10 Satisfaction and penance for sin enjoined, appeareth lib. 4. cap. 25. which the Protestants court admitteth not.  
There is no word of satisfaction for his sins, but of fasting and prayers, as fruits of repentance, whereunto he was first exhorted by the priest, according to his power and ability, but he not content herewith, urged the priest to appoint him a certain time of fasting, for a whole week together, to whose infirmity the priest somewhat yielding, willed him to fast two or three days in a week, until he returned to give him farther advice. Every man may see broad difference betwixt this counsel and Popish satisfaction and penance.  
11 Merit of good works in this story is eftsoons justified. lib. 4. cap. 14. & 15. which the Protestants count prejudicial to God's glory.  
In the 14. chapter there is no mention of the merit of good works, but that after the brethren had fasted and prayed, God delivered them of the pestilence. We never denied, but that God regardeth our prayer and fasting, though not as meritorious, but as our obedience which he requireth of us, and saveth us only for his mercy sake. The 15. chapter scarce toucheth any matter of religion, and therefore I know not what he meaneth to quote it, except it be a error of the Printer.  
12 Intercession of Saints, Protectants abhor the practice, whereof appeareth lib. 1. cap. 20. & lib. 4. cop. 14.  
In the former place Beda supposeth, that God gave the Britain's victory at the intercession of S. Alban, but where learned he this kind of intercession, out of the holy scriptures?  
In the latter place a boy being sick of the plague, reporteth, that God would cease the plague, at the intercession of S. Oswald: as the Apostles Peter and Paul declared to him in a vision. But seeing the Apostles have taught no such doctrine in their writings, they have admonished us to beware of such fantastical visions. Gal. 1. 2 Thessa. 2.  
13 The Clergy of their primitive Church after holy orders taken, do not marry, lib. 1. cap. 27. Now after holy orders and vow to the contrary, priests do marry.  
The Counsel of Gregory to Augustine is this. If there be any among the Clergy out of holy orders, which can not live chaste, they shall take wives. These words command some of the Clergy to take wives, they forbidden not the rest to marry. For what shall they that are in holy orders do, if they can not live chaste? Again, the histories are plentiful that Priests were married in England three or four hundredth years after Augustine.  
14 In their primitive Church the vow of chastity was thought godly and practised: now they are counted damnable & broken.  
Such vows as were made without consideration of men's ability to perform them, are justly accounted rash and presumptuous. Such is the vow of virginity in a great many, which our saviour Christ affirmeth to be a rare gift, not in every man's power. As for the vow of chastity, if any were made by Popish priests, it was oftener broken before the restoring of true knowledge, than since. Whose incontinency hath infected the world with whoredom and uncleanness.  
15 Such Monks and virgins lived in cloisters, in obedience and poverty, which are overthrown of Protestants as a damnable estate.  
The horrible abuse of Cloystrall life, hath caused the subversion of them, beside their errors, superstition and idolatry.  
16 Prayer for the dead, Dirige over night, and Requiem Mass in the morning, was an accustomed manner, lib. 3. cap. 2. lib. 4 cap. 21. which the Protestants count to be abomination.  
Prayer for the dead is an older error then Popish religion. But Dirige and Requiem Mass had an other meaning, lib. 3. cap. 2. then the Papists have now, for there it is said. In the self same place the religious men of Hagustalden Church, have now of long time been accustomed to come every year, the eve and the day that the same king Oswald was afterward slain, to keep Diriges there for his soul, and in the morning, after Psalms being said solemnly, to offer for him the sacrifice of holy oblation. You must understand, that this Oswald was of them that so did, taken for an holy martyr, and therefore these Psalmodies and sacrifices were of thanksgiving for the rest of his soul: not of propitiation for his sins, as the Papists account them. lib. 4. cap. 21. there is nothing to the matter in hand, but in the next chapter following, is the tale of him that was loosed from his fetters by saying of Mass, by the relation whereof, and not by the word of God, many began to think the sacrifice of the Mass profitable for the dead.  
17 Reservation of the sacrament thought no superstition, lib. 4. cap. 24. now counted profanation of the sacrament.  
Reservation was an older error than Popery, yet contrary to the commandment of Christ: Take ye, and eat ye.  
18 Houseling before death used, as necessary for all true Christians, lib. 4. cap. 3. & 24. Protestants under pretence of a Communion, do now wickedly bereave Christian folk of it.  
These chapters show that it was used, but not that it was used as necessary. The Communion of the sick is also used of us. Neither can M. Stapleton prove, that it was then ministered to the sick person alone, as is used among them. But in the 24. chapter of the 4. book it may be gathered, that as many as were present with the party, received with him, because there was a mutual demand of his being in charity with them, and they with him.  
19 Consecrating of Monks and Nuns by the hands of the Bishop, a practised solemnity in their primitive Church, lib. 4. cap. 19 & 23. which Protestants by the liberty of their Gospel laugh and scorn at.  
Chap. 19 it is said, that Wilfride gave to Ethelrede the vail and habit of a Nun, and cap. 23. that one Hein took the vow & habit of a Nun, being blessed and consecrated by Bishop Aidan. In those elder times, no virgin was suffered to profess virginity, but by the judgement of the Bishop, who was not only a minister of the ceremony of profession, but also a judge of the expedience and lawfulness of the vow, so that the vow of virginity was moderated and kept within more tolerable bounds, then is used of the Papists.  
20. Commemoration of Saints at Mass time, lib. 4. cap. 14 & 18. such commemorations in the Protestants Communion are excluded, as superstitious and unlawful.  
Chap. 14. it it said upon the report of a boy's vision, And therefore let them say Masses, and give thanks that their prayer is heard, and also for the memory of the same king Oswald, which sometime governed their nation. Admitting this vision to be true, here is but Mass and memory of thanksgiving: in the 18. chap. is nothing to any such purpose. In the Communion of our Church is a thanksgiving, with Angels, Archangels, and all the glorious company of heaven, although we make no special mention of any one Saint by name.  
21 Pilgrimage to holy places, especially to Rome, a much waitie matter of all estates, lib. 4. cap. 3. & 23. & lib. 5. cap. 7. Nothing soundeth more profane and barbarous in the ears of Protestants.  
In the first of these places, there is mention of pilgrimage into Ireland, not for the holiness of the place. but for the wholesome instruction that then was there. For it seemeth by the story in many places, that Ireland (although not subject to the See of Rome) was then replenished with godly learned men, of whom men sought out of Britain, to be informed in religion. Peregrination to Rome was used of superstition, and opinion of great learning to be had from thence. Yet was there no pilgrimage to images, nor to Rome, so filthy a sink of all abominations, as it hath been since those days.  
22 Of the relics of holy men, of reverence used towards them, and miracles wrought by them, the history is full. Nothing is more vile in the sight of Protestants, than such devotion of Christians.  
Such superstition and credulity of the former age, is justly misliked of us, but the idolatry and forging of relics, which is too common among the Papists, is rightly detested of us.  
23 Blessing with the sign of the Cross, accounted no superstition, lib. 4. cap. 24. & lib. 5. cap. 2. In the devotion of the Protestants is esteemed magic.  
Signing with the sign of the Cross, which sometime against the Gentiles was an indifferent ceremony: used of the Papists for an ordinary form of blessing, is both superstitious and idolatrous.  
24 Solemnity of burial Protestants despise, whereas it was the devotion of their primitive Church, to be buried in monasteries, Churches, and chapels.  
Honourable burial of the Saints bodies, which were the temples of the holy Ghost, and are laid up in hope of a glorious resurrection, Protestants despise not. Yet were the first Archbishops of Canturburie buried in a Porch beside the Church, lib. 2. cap. 3. There was no burial place appointed in the Monastery of Berking, until by a light it was revealed, as the history saith, lib. 4. cap. 7. but with time superstition on of burial grew, yet nothing comparable in that age to the superstition of Papists of these latter times. There was no burial in S. Frances Cowl, nor after the Popish solemnity.  
25 Benediction of the Bishop as superior to the people, was used, which Protestants scorn at, lib. 4. cap. 11.  
The Protestants allow benediction of the Bishop in the name of God, as the superior, although they justly deride the Popish manner of blessing, by cutting the air with crosses: neither is there any such blessing spoken of in the chapter by him cited.  
26 The service of the Church was at the first planting of their faith in the Latin and learned tongue, lib. 1. cap. 29. lib. 4. cap. 18. which the Protestants have altered.  
There is no such thing to be proved in the first place, nor any thing sounding the way, but only this, that Gregory sent into England to Augustine many books, of which it is a Popish consequence to gather, that they were books of Latin service. In the latter it is declared, that john the chanter of Rome, brought from thence the order of singing, and reading: and put many things in writing, which pertained to the celebration of high feasts and holidays, for the whole compass of the year. But this being almost an hundredth years after the coming of Augustine, it appeareth the Church of England had no such Latin service before. For Gregory willed Augustine to gather out of every Church, what ceremonies he thought expedient for the English Church, and bound him not to the orders or service of the Church of Rome. And it may be gathered, that long after there was no certain form of administration of the sacraments put in writing & generally received; but that the priests which then were learned, ordered the same according to their discretion, for their chief labour was in preaching and instructing. For Beda reporteth upon the credit of one which lived in his time, and was Abbot of Wye, Herebald by name, that he being in great extremity and danger of death, by falling from an horse, S. john of Beverlaye the Bishop, that was his master, asked him whether he knew without all scruple or doubt, that he was baptised or no, to whom he answered, that he certainly knew that he was baptised, and told the priests name that baptised him. To whom the Bishop replied, saying: If you were baptised of him, doubtless you were not well baptised: for I know him well, and am right well assured, that when he was made priest, he could not for his dull-headed wit, learn, neither to instruct nor to baptise. And for that cause I have straightly charged him, not to presume to that ministery which he could not do accordingly. By this it may be gathered, that the form of baptism was not set down in writing, which every dull-headed dogbolt priest can read, but that it was referred to the learning of the minister which did instruct them that were of age, and came to receive baptism. But this ignorant priest whom S. john of Beverlay deprived of his ministery, could neither catechize nor baptise: for which cause, the young man being catechized again, and after he recovered of his fall, was baptised a new, as one that was not rightly baptised before. Moreover, lib. 4. cap. 24. Beda showeth of one Cednom in the Abbay of Hilda, to whom was given miraculously the gift of Singing and making Hymns for religion in his mother tongue, of the creation of the world, and all histories of the old Testament, of the incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, etc. which by all likelihood were used in the Churches. And when Latin service was first used, it is not incredible, but that the people did meetly well understand it, for the Latin tongue was in those days understood in most places of the Western Church. And Beda noteth some especially which understood no language but the Saxon. The interpreters which Augustine brought out of France, do confirm this conjecture. For the rude Latin tongue spoken in France, was better understood of the vulgar people, then that was spoken at Rome and in Italy: for which cause, there was a Canon made in the third Council at Toures, that the Homilies should be turned in rusticam Romanam linguam, into the rude Latin tongue, that they might more easily be understood of all men. Again, the Britain's and Pictes which converted the greatest part of the Saxons, how could they have been understood preaching in Welsh, but that the vulgar Latin tongue was a common language to them both. Finally, the manifold uses of divers Churches, as Sarum, York, etc. declare, that the Latin service was but lately in comparison set down, when knowledge decayed both in the Priests and the people.  
27 Protestants have plucked down altars, which they had of old time.  
They had altars, but standing in the midst of the Church, as the tables stood in the Primitive Church.  
28 Altar clothes and vestments used of them, Protestants admit not.  
A sorry ceremony, in which no part of Christianity consisteth. The like I say of the 29. holy vessels, 30. holy water, and 31. Ecclesiastical censure, about which there was no small ado.  
32 Their primitive Church was governed by Synods of the Clergy only, in determining controversies of religion, which Protestants have called from thence unto the Lay court only.  
The latter part is a slander upon the Protestants, the former part a lie upon the ancient Saxons, for at the Synod holden at Strenshalch, 
Vz. Whitby in Yorkshire.  not only the kings Oswine & Alfride were present, but also king Oswine did order the Synod, and in the end concluded the matter in controversy, lib. 3. cap. 25.  
33 The spiritual rulers of the primitive Church were Bishops and pastors duly consecrated, protestants have no consecration, no true Bishops at all.  
This is an other lewd slander against the Protestants, for they have true Bishops, though not consecrated after the Popish manner. Laurence the second Archbishop of Canterbury, acknowledgeth the Ministers of the Scots and Britain's for Bishops, although they were not subject to the Church and See of Rome, lib. 2. cap. 4. Aidanus, Finanus, Colmanus, are judged of Beda for true Bishops, although they were divided from the Church of Rome, and so are such Bishops as were ordained by them, for they converted the greatest part of the Saxons unto Christian faith: As Northumbrians, Mertians, and East Saxons.  
34 Protestants have brought the supreme government of the Church to the Lay authority: in the primitive faith of our country the Lay was subject to the Bishop in spiritual causes.  
And so are they now in such causes as they were subject then. But that the supreme authority was in the civil Magistrate at that time, it may appear by these reasons. First Pope Gregory himself calleth the Emperor Mauritius his sovereign Lord, lib. 1. cap. 23. & 28. & 29. & 30. and after him Pope Honorius called Heraclius his sovereign Lord, lib. 2. 18. King Sonwalch Preferred Agilbert and Wini to be Bishops, afterward he deposed Wini, which for money bought for Wulfher king of Mercia the See of London, lib. 3. cap. 7.  
Earcombert king of Kent, of his princely authority purged his realm of idolatry, and commanded that the fast of 40. days should be kept, lib. 3. cap. 8.  
King Oswine ordered the Synod at Strenshalch, li. 3. cap. 25. Oswine and Ecgbert kings, deliberate touching the peaceable government of the Church, and by the choice and consent of the Clergy, did nominate Wighard Archbishop of Canturburie, lib. 3. cap. 29.  
King Ecgfride deposed Bishop Wilfride, li. 4. ca 12.  
Ost for at the commandment of king Edilred was consecrated by Wilfrid Bish. of the Victians, li. 4. ca 23. These places of the history show, that kings had chief authority both over persons and causes Ecclesiastical, such as we now acknowledge our Princes to have.  
35 The final determination of spiritual causes rested in the See Apostolic of Rome; which is now detested of protestants.  
Although the See of Rome usurped much in those days, yet was not the authority thereof acknowledged by the Churches of the Britain's, Irish, and Scots. The Britain's before Augustine's time sent not to Rome, but unto France for aid against the Pelagian heretics. At Augustine's coming and long after, they refused to yield obedience to the See of Rome; yea among the Saxons themselves, Wilfrid deposed by the king, and absolved by the Pope, could not be restored, but by a Synod of his own country, li. 5. c. 20.  
36 Their faith and Apostles came from the See of Rome: the protestant departeth there fro.  
The Protestants are returned to the ancient faith which was in this land before Augustine came from Rome, which did not so much good in planting faith where it was not, as in corrupting the sincerity of faith where it was before he came.  
37 Their faith was first preached with cross and procession, Heresies first raged by throwing down the cross, and altering the procession therewith.  
The Popish faith began with superstition, which the Christian Catholics have justly abolished.  
38 Their first Apostles were Monks. The first preachers of the protestants have been apostates, as Luther, Oecolampadius, Martyr, etc.  
Nay, they have returned from apostasy to the true faith and religion of Christ. Augustine and the rest of the Monks of that time, differed much from the Popish Monks of the latter days. For they were learned preachers, lib. 3. cap. 26. these idle loiterers: they laboured with their hands, lib. 5. cap. 19 these lived of the sweat of other men's brows. They made no such vow but they might serve the common wealth, if they were called thereto. Sigbard of a Monk was made King, lib. 4. cap. 11. these professed themselves dead to all honest travel, either in the Church or common wealth.  
39 The first imps of their faith, and scholars of the Apostles, were holy men. Luther confesseth his scholars to be worse than they were under the Pope.  
There were hypocrites in those days, also there were incontinent Nuns, lib. 4. cap. 25. And Beda confesseth, that Aidane (which was no slave of the Romish See) was more holy, then the Clergy of his time, whose devotion was key cold. If Luther flattered not his scholars, he is more to be commended, yet can not Stapleton prove, that he speaketh so of all, but of some carnal professors only.  
40 Their first preacher lived apostolically in voluntary poverty. This Apostolical perfection protestants that bear themselves for the Apostles of England, neither practise themselves, nor can abide in other.  
First it is a slander, that any Protestants bear themselves for Apostles of England: secondly, let the world judge whether the preachers of the Gospel, come nearer to the poverty of the Apostles, than the Pope their great Apostle of the Romish Church, with the rest of the pillars of the same, the Cardinals, etc.  
41 Their faith builded up Monasteries and Churches, protestants have thrown down many, erected none.  
The first Monasteries were Colleges of learned preachers, and builded for that end. King Edilwald builded a Monastery, wherein he & his people might resort to hear the word of God, to pray, and to bury their dead, lib. 3. cap. 23. The like practice was in the Abbay of Hilda lib. 4. Ca 23. From which use seeing they were of late degenerated into idleness and filthy lusts, they were lawfully suppressed. And as for building of Churches, where they lack, Protestants have and do employ their endeavour. 42 By the first Christians of their faith, God was served day and night, protestants have abolished all service of God by night, and done to the devil a most acceptable sacrifice.  
Protestants have abolished no service of GOD by night, but such as was either impious or superstitious, for they also serve God both day and night, even with public prayer, and exercise of hearing the word of God preached.  
43 By the devotion of the people, first embracing their faith, much voluntary oblations were made to the Church, by the reckless religion of the Protestants due oblations are denied to the Church.  
Of them that be true professors of the Gospel, both due oblations are paid, and much voluntary oblations also, for the maintenance of the preachers, for relief of the poor, the straunges and captives, etc.  
44 Princes endued the Church with possessions and revenues. The lewd looseness of the Protestants hath stirred princes to take from the Church's possessions so given.  
Nay, the pride, covetousness, and luxuriousness of Popish Clergy, have moved them to do that is done in that behalf.  
45 Last of all, their faith reduced the Scottishmen living in schism, to the unity of the Catholic Church. This late alteration hath moved them from unity to schism.  
Nay, their superstition at length corrupted the sincerity of faith in the Britain's and Scots, and from the unity of the Catholic Church of Christ, brought them under the schismatical faction of the See of Rome, from which they are now again returned with us, God be thanked, to the unity of Christ's true Catholic and Apostolic Church.  
These differences which he hath either falsely observed, or else craftily collected out of the dross and dregs of that time, he promiseth to prove, to concur with the belief & practice of the first 600. years, in the second part of his feeble fortress, which is easily blown over, with one word. Although some of these corruptions have been received within the first 600. years, yet is he not able to prove, that they have been from the beginning, and so continued all that time, wherefore his Fortress will do them small pleasure, to establish them for Christian truths, which have had a later beginning than our Saviour Christ and his Apostles.  
But for as much as he hath gathered differences of the first Church of the Saxons from ours, I have also gathered differences of the same from theirs at this time, and let the readers judge of both indifferently.  
1 The Church of English Saxons for 300. years after Augustine, did believe bread and wine to remain in the sacrament after consecration, which the Papists deny, proved by a Sermon extant in the Saxon tongue, translated out of Latin by Aelfrike Archbishop of Canturburie or Abbot of S. Alban's, appointed to be read unto the people at Easter before they received the Communion, also by two Epistles of the same Aelfrike.  
2 The Church of English Saxons believed the sacrament to be the body and blood of Christ, not carnally but spiritually, expressly denying as well the carnal presence as transubstantiation which the Papists hold Aelf. Serm. Pasc & Ep.  
3 The Church of English Saxons did give the communion under both kinds unto the people, which the Papists do not, Aelf. Serm. Pasc & Beda lib, 1. cap. 27. & lib. 5. cap. 22.  
4 The Priests of that time said no private Mass on working days, but only on holy days, which therefore were called Mass days, Aelfr. Ser. Pasc. Popish priests every day.  
5 The people did then communicate with the priest, Beda lib. 2. cap. 5. The Popish priest eateth and drinketh all alone.  
6 The English Saxon Church did celebrate Easter with the old jews in one faith, although they differ from them in the kind of external sacraments: whereby they affirmed the substance of the sacraments of both the testaments to be all one, which the Papists deny. Aelfr. Serm. Pasc. & Epist. Bed lib. 5. ca 22.  
7 The sacrament of the lords Supper was not then hanged up to be worshipped nos carried in procession, because they had not the opinion of carnal presence which the Papists have, etc.  
8 The English Saxons Church denied, that wicked men received the body and blood of Christ. Aelfr. Serm. Pasc. The Papists hold, that not only wicked men, but also brute beasts eat the body of Christ, if they eat the external sacrament thereof.  
9 The English Saxons allowed the Scriptures to be read of the people in the Saxon tongue, whereof Canutus made a law, that all Christian men should diligently search the law of God. The Papists deny the search of God's law to all Christian men, that are not of the Clergy, or learned in the Latin tongue.  
10 The English Saxons decreed in Synod after Latin service prevailed, and the knowledge of Latin decayed, that the priests should say unto the people on Sundays and holy days, the interpretation of that Gospel in English. Aelfr. lib. Can. which the Papists neither do nor will suffer to be done.  
11 The English Saxons commanded that all men should be instructed by the Priests to say the lords prayer, the Creed, & the ten Commandments in the English tongue. Will. Mal. li. 1. de part. Aelfr. in lib. Can. Canut in leg. which the Papists have taught to be heretical.  
12 The English Saxons decreed in Synod, and king Canutus made a law, that the priests should instruct the people in the understanding of the lords prayer, the Creed, etc. ubi supra, which the Papists altogether neglect, affirming ignorance to be the mother of devotion.  
13 The worshipping of images, and the second Council of Nice that decreed the same, was accursed of the Church of God in England and France, & written against by Alcuinus, in the name of the Church of England and France. Math. West. simeon Dunel. Rog. Houed etc. The Papists defend both that idolatrous Council, and their wicked decree.  
14 The Priests in the primitive Saxon Church, were married for three or four hundredth years, witness all histories of England, which the Papists do not allow.  
15 The vow of chastity was not exacted of them that were made Priests, for the space of more than 400. years after the arrival of Augustine into Kent, which decree was made by Lanfrancus in a Synod at Winchester, Anno 1076.  
16 Notwithstanding this decree and many other, both Priests refused to make that vow, and kept their wives by the king's leave. Gerard. Ebor Ep. ad Anselm. Histor. Petroburg. Papists permit neither of both.  
17 Lanfrancus decreed, that such priests as had wives, should not be compelled to put them away, the Papists enforce Priests to put away their wives.  
18 The Popes that were founders of the English Saxon church, acknowledged the Emperors to be their sovereign Lords. Bed. li. 1. cap. 23. lib. 2. cap. 18  
19 Pope Honorius took order that the Archb. of Canturb. might be consecrated in England, without traveling to Rome. Bed. l. 2. ca 18. The latter Popes denied this.  
20 Pope Gregory exhorteth king Ethelbert to set forth the faith of Christ to his subjects, to forbid the worship of idols, etc. Bed. lib. 1. cap 32. The Papists would not have the civil magistrate govern in Ecclesiastical causes.  
21 And lest you should say (as M. Saunder doth) that the king was herein the Bishop's Commissary. Earcombert king of Kent of his princely authority purged his realm of idolatry, and commanded the fast of 40. days to be kept. Bed. lib. 3. cap. 8. The Papists deny that a king may do such things of his princely authority.  
22 Kings in those times preferred men to bishoprics, Bed. lib. 3 cap. 7. which the Papists affirm to be unlawful.  
23 Kings in those days deposed Bishops, as Senwalch did Wini, Bed. li. 3. cap. 7. Ecgfrid deposed Wilfride, lib. 4. ca 12. which the Papists do not admit.  
24 King Ecgfride would not receive Wilfrid being restored by the Pope, Bed. lib. 4. cap. 13. & lib. 5. cap. 10. The Papists count it blasphemy not to obey the Pope's decree.  
25 The same Wilfride being again deprived by means of king Aldfride, and being the second time absolved by the Pope, could not be restored to his Bishopric. but by a Synod of his own Clergy, Bed. lib. 5. cap. 20. By which it appeareth, the Clergy were not then in perfect slavery to the Pope.  
26 Kings in those days were present at Synods, and ordered them, and concluded in them as Oswine did at Strenshalch, lib. 3. cap. 25.  
27 Archbishops were commanded by Kings to consecrate Bishops, as Wilfride was to consecrate Ostfor at the commandment of king Edilred, Bed li. 4. cap. 23. Papists deny Kings to have sovereign authority in ecclesiastical causes.  
28 Privileges of Monasteries sought at Rome, had first the consent of the king unto them, Bed. lib. 4. cap. 18. Papists of later times seek privileges against the kings will.  
29 Monks in that time were called to serve the Common wealth, as Sighard a Monk was made king of the East Saxons, lib. 4. ca 11. Papists call such Apostates.  
30 Monasteries were then Colleges of learned men to furnish the Church with Ministers and Bishops, li. 4 ca 23. Among Papists they be stalls to feed idle bellies, that serve neither the Church nor the Common wealth.  
31 Study of the Scriptures and hand labour was the exercise of Monks in those first and better times, Bed. lib. 4. cap. 3. Idleness and vain ceremonies is the exercise of Popish Monks.  
32 Monasteries were founded, that men might in them hear the word of God, and pray. Bed. li. 3. ca 23. Popish Monasteries in latter times were builded only to pray for men's souls, and to say Masses in them, etc.  
33 Upon Sundays the people used ordinarily to flock to Churches and Monasteries to hear the word of God. Bed. lib. 3. cap. 26. In popish Monasteries there neither was nor is any ordinary resort to hear the word of God, nor any ordinary preaching.  
34 The Monks of that time were all learned preachers, Bed. lib. 3. cap. 26. The Popish Monks are most unlearned, and few preachers out of their dens.  
35 In those days every Priest and Clerk was a preacher, so that when any came to any town, the people would resort to them to be taught of them. Bed. lib. 4. cap. 16. The greatest number of Popish Priests in these latter days, are most ignorant Asses, and void of all spiritual understanding.  
36 Unlearned Priests were forbidden to serve in the Church, Bed. lib. 5. cap. 6. in so much that S. john of Beverley baptised again a young man, which was baptised of an unlearned Priest. The Papists allow unlearned Priests to baptize and say Mass, that can not catechize and instruct their hearers.  
37 Songs and Hymns out of the holy Scriptures were made meet for religion in the mother tongue. Bed. lib. 4. cap. 24. Papists can abide no songs of scripture in the English tongue.  
38 Anchorets' of that time laboured with their hands, Bed. lib. 4. cap. 28. Popish Anchorets' liue idly, and labour not with their hands.  
39 Dirige and Mass was said for Saint Oswaldes soul, by which it is manifest, that they esteemed the Mass to be a sacrifice of thanksgiving. lib. 3. cap. 2.  
40 Bega a Nun, after she saw the soul of the Abbess Hilda carried into heaven, exhorted her sisters to be occupied in prayers and Psalms for her soul. Whereby it appeareth that the doctrine of purgatory was not yet confirmed among them. Lib. 4. ca 23. Nothing is so certainly defended among Papists as purgatory.  
41 Holy men fasted then with eating of milk, as Egbert. Bed. lib. 3. ca 27. and Cedda fasted lent with eggs and milk lib. 3. ca 23. Papists of later times have utterly forbidden all white meats in Lent and fasting days.  
42 There was a Church of Christ in Britain before the coming of Augustine not subject to the see of Rome, which continued long after his coming lib. 2. cap. 4. The Papists account none Christians, but such as be bondslaves to the see of Rome.  
43 Laurence the 2. Archbishop. of Canter. accounteth the Bishops of the Scots and Britain's for Bishops, although they were not subject to the see nor Church of Rome. Bed lib. 3 cap. 4. The Papists take none for Bishops that be not under the see of Rome.  
44 The Churches of the Britaines were builded after another form then the Churches of the Romish obedience Bed. lib. 3. cap. 4. The Papists affirm there were no Churches ever builded but in fashion and use of popery.  
45 The Schottish Church instructed from Ireland observed all such works of devotion as they could find in the Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles writings, and therefore of Bede and the English Church were acknowledged for Christians, although they would not become members of the Church of Rome Bed. li. 3. ca 4. The Papists hold that there is no salvation out of the Church of Rome; which is a new Church in England, in comparison of the elder that was before Augustine's time.  
46 Aidanus a preaching Bishop having no possessions, labouring to fulfil all that was written in the holy scriptures, the prophets and Apostles, shining in miracles both in his life time and after his death, was never subject to the Church of Rome, yet accounted a Saint of the Church in those days Bed. lib. 3. cap. 16. The Papists allow no saints but canonised by their Pope.  
47 The exercise of Aidanus company both shorn and lay men, was reading of the Scriptures and learning of the Psalms Bed. lib. 3. cap. 5. The exercise of Popish Bishop's servants is nothing less.  
48 The greatest part of the English Saxons, were converted to Christianity, by the Britain's & Scots that were no members of the Church of Rome. As all the kingdom of Northumberland both Bernicians & Deires, were converted by Aidanus except a few persons whom Paulmus the Roman in long time had gained. The whole kingdom of Mercia, which was the greatest part of England, received the faith and baptism of Finanus the Scot the successor of Aidanus Bed. lib. 3. cap. 21. The East Saxons by Cedda that was also of the Scottish ordering lib. 3. cap. 22. The Papists affirm that all our religion came from Rome.  
49 Ceadda was consecrated by Wini bishop of the West Saxons, assisted by two Britain Bishops that were not subject to the see of Rome, & was nevertheless accounted for a lawful bishop Bed. lib 3. 28.  
50 Beda accounted Gregory for the Apostle of the Englishmen lib. 2. cap. 1. The Papists now take Augustine for their Apostle.  
I omit many other opinions and ordinances of that age: as Augustine would have none forced to religion, that Wednesday should be fasting day. The bishop of London should have a pall as well as York etc. wherein the Papists differ from them that brag of nothing but antiquity, universality and consent.   

AN OVERTHROW of Stapletons' Fortress, or as he calleth it himself, the pillar of Papistry.  
The first Book.  

CAP. I.  
AN introduction, declaring the necessity of the matter to be treated upon, 
Stapleton.  and the order which the avothour will take in treating thereof.  
OMitting the necessity of the matter, 
Fulke.  his order which he promiseth to keep is this. First he will prove, if he can, that Papistry is the only true Christianity. This proposition he will follow by two principal parts. In the former he will prove by authority of Scriptures, and answering of the adversaries objections, that the Church cannot possibly err. Secondly that this Church must be a known Church, that no malignant Church can prevail against it: that Papistry can be no schism nor heresy. In the latter part after a few reasonable demands that protestants must not refuse to answer, putting the case that the known Church of 900. years is a kind of papistry, he will prove that the faith of protestants is differing from that was first planted among English men in more than forty points, and that in all those points of difference, he will show they agree with the first 600. years, which he saith (but falsely) that protestants offer to be tried by. For although the Bishop of Sarum made challenge of many articles now holden of the Papists, not to be found within the compass of the first 600. years, and therefore to be new and false doctrines, yet neither he, nor any protestant living, or dead, did ever agree to receive what doctrine so ever was taught within the first six hundredth years. But this I dare avow, that what article of doctrine so ever we do affirm, that same hath been affirmed of the godly fathers of the primitive Church, what so ever we deny, the same can not be proved to have been universally affirmed and received of all the godly fathers by the space of the 600. years together.   

CAP. II.  
That protestants do condemn the vuiversal Church of Christ of these many hundredth years, 
Stapleton.  and the reason of the whole disputation following grounded thereupon.  
To prove that the Protestants condemn the universal Church of Christ these many hundredth years, 
Fulke.  he allegeth the sayings of some Protestants, miserably wrested from their meaning: that Latimer was our Apostle, that Luther begat truth, that the Gospel doth arise in the first appearing of the Gospel, &c: or as though by these sayings & such like they should deny, that ever there had been any Church in the world before these times, whereas every child may understand, they speak of the restitution of the truth of the Gospel into the open sight of the world, in these latter days. Likewise where some have written, that the Pope hath blinded the world these many hundredth years, some say a thousand years, some 1200. some 900. some 500 etc. And the Apology affirmeth that Christ hath said: the Church should err, he cavilleth that all the Church for so many years is condemned of all error. Whereas it is evident to them that will understand that although some erroneous opinions have prevailed, & in process of time have increased in the greatest part of the Church, for many hundredth years, yet so long as the only foundation of salvation was retained, the universal Church of Christ so many hundredth years is not condemned. But when Antichrist (the mystery of whose iniquity wrought in the Apostles time. 2. Thess. 2.) was openly showed, and that apostasy which the Apostle foreshoweth, was fulfilled then and from that time, whensoever it was, not the universal Church of Christ is condemned, but the general apopasie of Antichrist is detected.  

THE ARGUMENT Whereupon this first part of the vaumure of this Fortress is builded, is thus framed by the builder himself.  
The known Church of Christ doth continue, and shall continue always, 
Stapleton.  without interruption in the true and upright faith.  
But papistry was the only known Church of Christ all these nine hundredth years.  
Ergo papistry all these nine hundredth years hath continued and shall continue always even to the worlds end without interruption in the true and upright faith.  
This argument hath never a leg to stand upon, 
Fulke.  for understanding (as he doth) the known Church, to be that which is known to the world, to continue without interruption: so known to the world, the mayor is false. For although the Church shall continue always without interruption, yet it shall not continue always so known, but, as in the days of Elias, be hid from the outward view of men.  
Again, the minor, that Papistry was the only known Church, understanding (as he doth) that it was only reputed, taken, and acknowledged so to be, it is utterly false. For the Greek & Oriental Church, which is not the Popish Church, hath been reputed, taken, and acknowledged to be the Church of Christ, by as great a number of professors of Christianity, as have acknowledged the Popish Church. So that where he thinketh and saith, all his labour remaineth to prove the maior, you see that if he could prove it, yet all his labour is lost. But to follow him in his mayor, he divideth it into two parts. The one, that the Church doth always continue in a right faith. The other, that this is a known Church. Both these he promiseth to prove by Scripture. And the first truly he shall not need: but yet it followeth not, but that the church may err in some particular points, not necessary to salvation, although it continue in a right faith, concerning all principal and necessary articles.    

CAP. III.  
Evident proofs & clear demonstrations out of the Psalms, 
Stapleton.  that the Church of Christ must continue for ever without interruption, sound & upright.  
He is plentiful in proving, that which needeth no proof, 
Fulke.  that the Church of Christ shall continue always: and first out of the 88 Psalm, which he rehearseth and interpreteth of the Church out of Augustine, lest he should trust his own judgement, as he fantasieth, that our preachers do, altogether refusing to read interpreters. We affirm that the Church of Christ hath and shall continue to the worlds end, but we deny, that the Popish Church is that, which could not be before there was a Pope, before their heresies were brought out of the bottomless pit, which were not breathed up all in 600. years after Christ, no not in 1000 years after Christ, and some not almost in 14. hundredth years after Christ, I mean the sacrilegious taking away of the communion of the blood of Christ from the people in the council of Constance. What impudency is it of Papists, to urge the perpetual continuance of Christ's Church, without interruption, and then to begin at 600. years after Christ: and not to be able to show a perpetual course of all their doctrine, from Christ his Apostles and the primitive Church?  
But to prove that the church of Christ cannot possibly (as Protestant's wickedly do fable,) have failed and perished these many hundredth years, he citeth the 61. Psalm, with Augustine's exposition thereupon. But what Protestant so fableth M. Stapleton? you had need to make men of paper, to fight against the paper walls of your fantastical fortress. The Papists when they cannot confute that we say, they will beat down that we say not. How say the Protestants that these 900. years and upward, the Church hath perished: it hath been overwhelmed with Idolatry and superstition? The Protestants never said so M. Stapl. The Church hath not perished, though the greatest part of the world hath been overwhelmed with idolatry and superstition. God can provide for his chosen, that they shall not be drowned, when all the world beside is overwhelmed. Another testimony to the like effect, and with the like conclusion, he bringeth out of the psal. 104 & thereupon a pithy syllogism. We prove the Catholic Church by the continuance of Christianity. The continuance of Christianity only in Papistry is clear, ergo Papistry is only the true Church of Christ. Nego tibi minorem M. Stepl. When will you prove the continuance of Christianity only in Papistry, when Papistry began since Christ & his Apostles: and if you mean Christianity, for the external profession of Christ's religion: then will you prove the Oriental Churches to be papistry, which defy the authority of your Pope?  
Last of all, out of the Psalm. 101. and Augustine's application of the same against the Donatists, which said that the church was perished out of all the world except Africa where they were, he would compare the Protestants to them, whereas in deed the Papists are more like to them. For they holding that there is no Church of Christ but the Romish church, affirm in effect as the Donatists, that the Church of Christ for many hundredth years hath perished out of all parts of the world beside Europa, where only & yet not in all parts thereof they have borne the sway. Whatsoever therefore Augustine writeth against the Donatists, for shutting up the Church of Christ only in Africa, may be rightly applied to the Papists, for restraining it only to a part of Europa. But contrary to the Papists and Donatists, we affirm, that the Catholic church of Christ is and hath been, even in the most dark times of Antichristes kingdom, dispersed throughout the whole world, nothing doubting, but God, which preserved 7000. in one corner of Israel, not much greater than some shyere of England, hath preserved seven thousand thousand, in all parts of the wide world, which never bowed their knees to the Romish Baal, nor kissed him with their mouth.   

CAP. FOUR  
Proofs and testimonies one of the Prophet Esay, 
Stapleton.  that the Church of the Messiah continueth for ever unto the world's end, assisted always by God himself.  
The testimonies of the perpetuity of the Church out of the Prophet Esay, 
Fulke.  with the exposition of Hieronyme upon them, maketh nothing against us, which willingly acknowledge the same: But deny that they pertain to the Popish Church, which had her beginning long after Christ and his Apostles, and her full tyranny confirmed more than 1000 years after Christ. The same Jerome disputeth against the custom of the particular Church of Rome, and appealeth to the Church of all the world. Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est urbe, etc. If authority be sought, the world is greater than a city. And again: Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? What bringest thou forth to me the custom of one city? evagr. We stand for the Catholic Church of Christ dispersed over all the world, against the particular, schismatical, heretical, and Antichristian church of Rome, which though she have invaded by tyranny over a great part of Europe, yet never did she prevail over the whole Church throughout the world, not yet over all Europe.   

CAP. V.  
The doctrine of Caluine touching the Church, 
Stapleton.  is examined to the touchstone of the holy Scriptures alleged: Wherein also is treated and disputed, by what marks the Church may be known.  
First he confesseth that Caluine hath learnedly, largely, and truly, 
Fulke.  treated of the unity, authority, and obedience of the Church. He affirmeth also, that he acknowledgeth a visible Church in the world, whose communion we ought to keep, and of her to receive the spiritual food of doctrine and sacraments, which ought not to be forsaken for the evil life of the members thereof. All this he commendeth and alloweth. But herein he showeth his malicious cavilling stomach, that he supposeth Caluine to affirm, that the universal Church of Christ is visible, where he speaketh but of particular congregations members of the whole, which are visible, not to the world always, but to the members of the same.  
The marks of the Church which Caluine sayeth to be, true preaching of the word of God, and due administration of the sacraments, although he confesseth them to be in the Church, yet he denieth them to be the marks of the Church. For the mark must be better known then the thing whereof it is a mark, but the Church is more evident than those marks: ergo they be no true marks. The minor he proveth by that which Caluine teacheth, that we must learn of the Church the true meaning of the Scripture. But hereof it followeth not, that the Church is better known then these marks. For there is a farther trial which ought to be better known: by which both are to be known: namely the word of God, whereunto we must have recourse, to try whether those things that are preached, are even so in deed, as the Thessalonians did, by the preaching of Paul & Barnabas, Act. 17. ver. 11. The unmovable truth is to be sought in the Scriptures, what preaching or Church agreeth with that truth, is to be received & none other. And whereas he sayeth that Heretics challenge these marks as well as catholics, I grant they do so, but no more do they challenge these marks, than they challenge the Church to be on their side, for there was never heresy, but they bragged as much of the Church as of the truth. Therefore the Church is not more clear than these marks, but these marks tried by the word of God, are more clear than the Church, which is therefore the Church because it maintaineth true doctrine. The doctrine is not true because the Church maintaineth it. The cause is better known then the effect: for knowledge is to understand by causes.  
But M. Stapl. hath two better marks than Caluine describeth. To wit: the universality and communion of all nations: The continuance and ever-remaining thereof among Christians. These marks by no logic, can be causes of the Church, but adjuncts unto it, and therefore the worst arguments that can be to know it by: even such as the foolish man's argument was, that knew his horse by the bridle. But admit these to be proper adjuncts of the Church, yet shall not the popish Church be able to prove those to be her marks. For Popery neither doth, neither ever did possess all the world, except a piece of Europe be all the world. The Church of Christ is Catholic, although there were but three of four persons in all the world that maintained true doctrine, as there was not many when Christ & his Apostles and a few other were the only Church in all the world, and the Catholic Church, before they were dispersed into many nations. For the Church is called Catholic or universal, not because all men or most men do pertain uno it, but because all that be members of Christ, how many or how few so ever they be, and wheresoever they be, are members of that Church But M. Stapl. saith: The universality of the Church is a matter evident to the eye, & therefore the Catholic Church is always visible. To this I answer, that if the Catholic Church, or the universality thereof, were always visible, or at any time visible, or the universality thereof evident to the eye: it should be no article of faith: for faith is of such things as are not seen with the eye, but believed with the heart. Heb. 11. ver. 1. We agree with Augustine against the Donatists, that no heresy was in all countries & in all ages. For Papistry which is the greatest heresy & apostasy, was never in all countries & all ages. But if an heresy were in all countries and ages, yet proveth it not itself to be a Catholic truth. Idolatry hath been in all countries and ages, yet is it not thereby proved to be a Catholic truth. The Church of Christ whereof we are members, hath been in all parts of the world, and in all ages, though not always not ever received of the greatest part of men. And if this be a most clear and evident mark (as he saith) that no heretic can pretend to be joined in communion with all Christian countries. The Popish Church hath not this mark, which is not joined in communion with the Greeks, Armenians, Chaldeans, Aethiopians, and so many nations as at this day, and since the Apostles times have been Christened Countries.  
But now we come to the second mark of the Church. The continuance thereof from the beginning to the end of the world, which is in deed a proper adjunct of the Church of Christ, not to be found in any heresy, nor in papistry the greatest of all heresies. But M. Stapleton, which cannot prove that Papistry hath continued always, will argue upon that it hath continued a certain time. The Church (saith he) hath continued a certain hundred years in that faith and doctrine only which Papists do teach: But in those very hundredth years, the Church neither could lack, neither could have a wrong faith, or be seduced with damnable doctrine. Therefore Papists had all that time the true faith, and their faith and doctrine is true, sound, and upright. The mayor of this argument he affirmeth to be our confession, which is nothing else but an impudent lie of his own confiction. For which of the Protestants ever confessed that the Church hath continued so many hundredth years in that faith and doctrine only, which the Papists teach? If he have the wit to draw such confessions from us, he may prove what he list against us. But he promiseth to prove abundantly the continuance of Popish doctrine from the beginning, which we so stoutly deny. In the mean time he returneth to Caluine, whom he chargeth to have learned his opinion and doctrine of the Donatists, concerning the marks of the Church. Taking to witness the Ep. 48. of Augustine ad Vincentium, where the Donatists answered the argument of universality: that the Church was called Catholic, Not because it did communicate with the whole world, but because it observed all God's commandments & all his sacraments. But what a vain quarrel this is, he himself doth sufficiently declare, when he bringeth in Augustine immediately, confessing the Church to be called Catholic, because it holdeth that verity wholly and thoroughly, whereof every heresy holdeth a part or piece only, and addeth thereunto the communication with all nations: videlicet, that hold that verity wholly and thoroughly. And lest this might seem to be borrowed of the Donatists only, Augustine himself affirmeth as much, de Genesi ad literam imperfect. Cap. 1. Constitutam ab eo matrem ecclesiam, 〈◊〉 Catholica dicitur, ex eo quia universaliter perfecta est, & in nullo claudicat, & per totum orbem diffusa est. That by him the Church is appointed our mother, which is called Catholic, for that it is universally perfect, & halteth in nothing, and is dispersed throughout the whole world. Whereas Augustine requireth universal perfection in all true doctrine and administration of the sacraments with universality, the Papists take universality alone, which Augustine never said nor taught, to be a sufficient note of the Church.  
After this he chargeth Caluine to deny the perpetual continuance of the Church, because he said, that the pure preaching of the word hath vanished away in certain ages passed, by which he meaneth not (as this foolish caviller taketh him, or rather mistaketh him) that true preaching had utterly perished out of the whole world, but out of the Popish synagogue, which in Europe boasted itself to be the only Church of Christ, when in the chief articles of Christianity, it derogated from the glory of Christ, and was subject to the doctrine of the man of sin, the adversary and enemy of Christ. And if malice had not blinded him, he would have so understood Caluine, alleging his saying immediately after, wherein he confesseth, that the Church of Christ never failed out of the world. Whereupon he demandeth whether the Church of the Protestants is that which hath never failed? If we say, it is, he demandeth further, where those marks of preaching and ministering of the sacraments have been these many hundredth years? which question he hopeth some disciple of Caluine will assoil him. I answer those marks were to be seen in such places, where the Churches were gathered, that had separated themselves from the Church of Rome. If he urge me further, to show him the particular places, let him resort to the book of Acts and monuments, which it seemeth he hath read over. If that will not satisfy him, by example of our Saviour Christ I will refel his vain question with another question: Where did those 7000. that GOD preserved in the days of Elias, assemble for prayers, preaching, and sacrifice. If he cannot tell, no more am I bound to show him in what particular places they preached and ministered the Sacraments. And therefore neither need the Apology to recant, nor the Harborough be revoked, nor M. Fox call in his book, nor M. Nowell his reproof. It will not suffice a wrangling caviller, an hundredth times to affirm, that the Church hath always continued, even when Papistry most prevailed, and even under the tyranny and persecution of Papistry: like as the Church was among the idolatrous Baalites in the days of Elyas, or among the wicked jews that persecuted the Prophets. But hereto he replieth, that though the assemblies of the jews were no Churches, yet their temple, sacrifices, ceremonies, law, and doctrine was good. I answer, so much of these as they retained according to God's law, was good, and so I confess of the doctrine and sacraments of the Papists. As Baptism, concerning the substance of the sacrament: the historical faith of the Trinity: of the incarnation, passion, resurrection of Christ, etc. But if these and many more pieces of truth, might be sufficient to make them the Church of Christ, many heretics might challenge the Church, which have confessed & practised a great number of truths, more than they, which err but in one article, as the Arrians, Pelagians, etc. Where as the Papists err in many: yea, in the whole doctrine of justification by faith, and the worship of God. And therefore Papistry is not only a schism, error, or heresy: But as Caluine out of Daniel 9 and Paul, 2. Thessal. 2. rightly concludeth, an apostasy, defection and antechristianitie, not abolishing, but retaining the names of Christ, of the Gospel, & of the Church: but the true virtue, power, and strength of the same, utterly forsaking, denying, and persecuting.   

CAP. VI  
Other prophecies alleged and discussed for the continuance of Christ's Church, 
Stapleton.  in a sound and upright faith.  
diverse texts of Scripture are cited, 
Fulke.  some rightly, some strangely applied, to prove that we deny not, namely the perpetual continuance of the Church of Christ, in a sound and right faith, in all matters necessary to salvation. Upon every one of which, he inferreth: how could Christ forsake his Church these 100L. years, as though we said that Christ hath had no Church in the space of nine hundredth years, which we never doubted of.   

CAP. VII.  
Proofs out of the Gospel, 
Stapleton,  for the continuance of Christ's Church, in pure and unspotted doctrine.  
When M. Stapleton cometh to prove that which we deny, 
Fulke.  his proofs will be neither so plentiful, nor so sufficient. His counterfeit painted Fort must have puppets made to assail it. The Church of Christ concerning the substance of doctrine necessary to salvation, shall continue pure and unspotted, although in other matters, she may be deceived, even as every one of Gods elect, for whom our Saviour Christ prayeth, john 17. which text M. Stapleton citeth to prove the continuance of the Church. We will never say, that hell gates have prevailed against the universal Church of Christ, though they have prevailed against the see of Rome. Yet must we say, as the Scripture teacheth us, that Antichrist shall prevail in the world, 2. Thessaly. 2. One Scripture is never contrary to another. We are challenged to read you out of the Scriptures, the breach, interruption, and failing of the Church of Christ so many hundredth years. As you understand the breach and failing, for an utter abolishing of the Church of Christ out of the world: such breach and failing, as we do not read it, so we do not affirm it. But that we affirm, we read that in the latter days some shall departed from the faith, attending to spirits of error in hypocrisy, etc. whose marks are to forbid marriage, and to abstain from meats which God hath created, etc. 1. Tim. 4. We read, that before the coming of Christ, shall be an apostasy, and the man of sin shallbe openly showed, which shall deceive a great part of the world, 2. Thess. 2. We read that the whore of Babylon, which all ancient writers expound to be Rome, shall with her sorcery enchant & make drunk all nations, etc. Apoc. This and much more we read, to show what your universality is, and to take away the objection of our paucity, and not appearing to the greatest part of the world, at such time as it pleased God, for the unthankfulness of men, to send them the efficacy of error, to be deceived, because they would not receive the truth.   

CAP. VIII.  
To deny the continuance of the Church in a sound & upright faith, 
Stapleton.  is to defect the mystery of Christ's incarnation.  
This man hath great leisure, with store of ink & paper, 
Fulke.  that filleth so many chapters, which proof of that, which none of his adversaries will deny Who all with one mouth confess, and cry out against him so loud, that if he were not either deaf or dead, he might hear: that as Christ the head continueth for ever, so doth the Church his body: but that the Popish Church at this time and many hundredth years before this time is the body of Christ, the spouse of Christ, the flock of Christ's sheep, which is divided from Christ, which is an adulteress from Christ, which heareth not the voice of Christ: this we all deny, and this you shall never be able to prove while the world standeth, babble and scribble as long as you will.   

CAP. IX.  
That Protestants do condemn the practice and belief of the first 600. years in many things, 
Stapleton.  no less then of this latter age.  
If Papists do allow the practice and belief of the first 600. years in all things, 
Fulke.  they may justly reprove us for refusing the same in some things. But if they refuse the practice and belief of that age in many things, because their Church, their judge, doth now practise and hold the contrary: why should they require us to be bound to the practice and opinion of those times in all things, when by Scriptures, the only rule of truth, with us, we find that they have erred in some things. But to leave his impudent railing and lying, that we or any of us, did ever offer to justify what so ever was done or held by godly men of the first 600. years: let us see what practice and belief he chargeth us to condemn.  
First (saith he) they not only reprove certain Fathers for certain errors, but in many points they condemn all the Fathers, for common errors: as invocation of saints, and prayer for the dead. And do not you Papists, reprove the practice of all the Fathers, & Pope Innocent with them, not only for ministering the Communion to infants, but also for holding that they be damned, except they receive the Communion? Augustim. Cont. duas ep. Pelag. ad Bonifac. lib. 2. cap. 4. Do you not reprove the practice & opinion of all the Father's, for allowing marriage in the ministers of the Church, which you utterly condemn? What shall I say of the Communion in both kinds, given to the lay people, by consent of all antiquity, of communicating with the Priest, and many such like things: the practice and belief whereof you utterly refuse?  
But to return to the examples of invocation of saints, which Stapleton saith, are clear by all writers of the first 600. years, railing like a saucy merchant at M. jewel and M. grindal, men whose learning and godliness he may envy, but will never attain unto. What a bold bayard is this, to affirm that Dowager of Saints is clear by all writers of the first 600. years, when no writer of 300. years after Christ, hath any one jot either of practice or belief to allow it? Epiphanius among the heresies of the Caianes counteth invocation of Angels. Tom. 3. Haer. 3. The other error of praying for the dead is more ancient, but yet it sprang first from the heresy of Montanus, neither is there any writer ancienter than Tertullian a Montanist, in whom any steps of prayer for the dead are to be found. To these he adjoineth a slander of Caluine, whom he affirmeth to teach, that God is the cause and author of evil: which how impudent a lie it is, all they that have read Caluine of Predestination can testify. The reservation of the Sacrament of the lords supper, Caluine confesseth to have been an erroneous practice of the ancient Church. And what say you Papists? was it not erroneous to reserve that which Christ commanded to be eaten and drunken? But you make no bones of Christ's commandment. If it were not erroneous, why was it forbidden in divers Counsels?  
If you care not for that, yet think not to mock the world with the ancient practice of reservation, which you yourselves condemn. Will you suffer men and women to carry home the sacrament and lock it in their chests? to hang it about their necks, to receive it in their houses when they list? If you allow not these things which was the reservation of ancient times, you are twice impudent to charge us for reproving that practice, which you yourselves do not admit to be lawful. But yet again, he chargeth Caluine to condemn the whole primitive Church of jewish superstition, for saying the Fathers followed rather the jewish manner of sacrificing, than the ordinance of Christ in the Gospel. What a shameless beast is this, to slander Caluine to condemn the whole primitive Church? when he speaketh only of the later and more corrupt times, in which he showeth their error, but condemneth not the Church.  
But now he will prove, that Protestants hold six heresies condemned within the first 500 years. The first is justification by faith only, condemned in Aerius and Eunomius, August. Haer. 54. Epiph. Haer. 76. which is a very shameless slander, for there is no such justification by faith only condemned in them, as we hold, which no man of the ancient Fathers more copiously defendeth, than Augustine himself. The second is also a most impudent lie, that to condemn free will in man, to work well, as we mean it, is an heresy of the Manichees & Marcionistes: for both which opinions as we hold them, Augustine himself shall speak, Ep. 105. Sixto. Restat igitur ut ipsam fidem unde omnis justitia sumit initium, propter quod dicitur ad ecclesiam in Cantico canticorum: Venies, & pertransies ab initio fidei, non humano, quo isti extolluntur, tribuamus arbitrio, nec villis praecedentibus meritis, quoniam inde incipiunt bona quaecunque sunt merita, sed gratitum donum Dei esse fateamur, si gratiam veram, id est, sine meritis cogitemus. Therefore it remaineth, that we ascribe not faith itself (from whence all righteousness taketh beginning, for which it is said unto the Church in the Balat of Balats, Thou shalt come & pass through from the beginning of faith) unto man's free will, whereof they are proud, nor to any merits going before, for all good merits what so ever they are, begin from thence▪ but that we confess it to be the freely given gift of God, if we think o● true grace which is without merits. Thus writeth Augustine against the Pelagians, which maintained free will to do well, and were counted heretics therefore: the contrary whereof Stapleton doth now count to be heresy in us. The third heresy imputed to Aerius, was the denial of prayer for the dead, which neither Augustine, nor Epiphanius that count it for an error, can by the word of God convince to be so. The fourth is joviniaans' opinion▪ making marriage equal with virginity, which we do not hold, but that in some respect virginity is preferred, as the Apostle teacheth, 1. Cor. 7. But that we exhort them to marry which can not keep their vow of continence, which rashly and presumptuously they made, we are warranted by Epiphanius Contra Apostolicos, Haer. 61. Hieronym. Ad Demetriadem. The fift, that is, the contempt of fasting days appointed by the Church, we hold not with Aerius and Eustachius, but contrariwise, that they are to be observed, although we make none account of the fasting days appointed, and superstitiously kept by the Popish Church. The sixth, the superstition of Christians used at the tombs of Martyrs, we condemn with Vigilantius and Augustine, De moribus ecclesiae Catholicae lib. 1. cap. 34. Neither is Vigilantius condemned of any man in his time, but by the private judgement of Hieronyme only.  
Now in how many heresies the Papists communicate with the old heretics, I have showed before in other treatises, which it were needless here to repeat.   

CAP. X.  
Objections of Protestants to prove the Church may err, 
Stapleton.  by the example and similitude of the old law, answered and confuted.  
The objection is only this out of the Defence of the truth fol. 94. as he saith: The Church of the jews lacked not Gods promises, 
Fulke  succession of Bishops and priests, opinion of holiness and austerity of life, knowledge of the law of God: And yet they erred, why may we not think the like may be in this our time. Both mayor & minor of this argument he saith is false: for first they had not such promises as the Church of Christ hath, of perpetual continuance in the truth, because they were not appointed to continue always, wherein he bewrayeth his gross & beastly ignorance, that can not discern between the nation of the jews, and the Church of God among the jews, which hath even the same promises of everlasting continuance, that the Church of the Gentiles hath, which is not an other Church from the Church of the jews, but an accession and an addition unto it. How many promises of eternal continuance, be made in the Prophets to Israel, to Zion, to jerusalem? Read Esa. ca 60. 62. & 63. among a number. The accomplishment whereof, although it be seen in the Church gathered of the Gentiles, yet who would be so impudent to deny, that they pertain principally to the Church of Israel, as to the elder brother? But what strive we further? when the Apostle to the Romans, cap. 9 vers. 3. expressly affirmeth, that the promises pertain to Israel, even as the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, etc. yet M. Stapleton thinketh himself a sharp disputer, when he objecteth out of the Epistle to the hebrews, Heb. 8. that the testament of Messiah is established in more excellent promises, because of the new covenant out of jeremy 31. as though both the testaments did not pertain to the Catholic Church of Christ, as well that of the jews, as this of the Gentiles. The new Testament & promises are better, then that was made in Sinai, but the new testament of Messiah, pertaineth as much to the Church of the jews, as to the Church of the Gentiles. Or else the Apostle had laboured in vain, writing to the jews, to draw them from the ceremonies of the old testament, to the covenant of Messiah, established only in mercy and forgiveness of their sins. Christ was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, whose redemption pertained as much unto the fathers that lived before his incarnation, as unto them that are borne sincer therefore the promise of the eternity of the Church, beginneth not at the nativity of Christ, but at the beginning of the world. So that for continuance and perpetuity of God's spirit with his Church, without the which it can not be the Church of God, the promises from the beginning, have been the same that are now, although according to Gods most wise dispensation, they have been more clearly revealed in the latter times, & most clearly of all by Christ himself and his Apostles.  
Now remaineth the minor to be proved. That the Church of the jews hath erred. Which he denieth, because the high priests answered truly of the nativity of Christ, & because Caiphas prophesied unwittingly of the virtue of Christ's death, than the which nothing can be more blockish. They erred not in one article, ergo they erred not at all. One of them spoke the truth against his will in one point, ergo the synagogue of the jews never erred. Again he saith, the whole synagogue, before the law of Christ took place, in necessary knowledge of the law of Moses did never err. For proof whereof, more like a block than a man, he bringeth such places of Scripture, as either show what the priests duty should be, but not affirm what their knowledge was, or else prophesy a reformation of the corrupt state of the Clergy, from ignorance to knowledge. As Ez. 44. The Priests & Levites shall teach my people. And Mal. 2. The lips of the Priest should keep knowledge, and men should require the law of his mouth. Agg. 2. Ask the priest the Law. But what drunken Fleming of Douaie, would reason thus? The Scribes and the Pharisees sat in Moses chair, therefore the Synagogue did either never or not then err. Our Saviour Christ willed them to be heard, while they spoke out of Moses chair, not while they taught to worship God in vain, preferring their traditions before the commandment of God. But who would spend any more time in reasoning against such a one, as defendeth that the Scribes and the Pharisees did not err, whose false doctrine concerning adultery, murder, swearing, the worship of God, not only the person, but also the quality of Messiah and his kingdom, our saviour Christ himself so often & so sharply doth reprove. But the whole synagogue (saith he) in necessary knowledge of the law of Moses did never err. If he understand the whole synagogue for every man, we confess the same, and so we say that the whole Church, that is all the elect, neither in the first six hundredth, nor in the latter nine hundredth years, did never err in necessary knowledge of the Gospel. But if you take the whole synagogue, for the whole multitude that had the ordinary authority, and did bear the outward face and countenance of the Church, they have erred before the coming of Christ▪ Example in the whole synagogue, in the days of josias, when the very book of the law was unknown unto the Priests, until it was found by occasion of taking out of money out of the temple, by Hilchiah the priest. So that from the beginning of the reign of Manasse, until the 18. year of the reign of josias, which was almost 80. years, Idolatry openly, prevailed in the temple of God, the whole synagogue, that is, all in authority and countenance, embracing the same, except a few poor Prophets, that were slain for crying out against it. 2. King. 22. & 2. Chro. 34. And such was the state of the Church in the most corrupt times, continuing as then, but yet in persecution, adversity, and being unknown unto the world, except now and then God stirred up some witness to testify his truth, which was slain of the beast Apoc. 11. Now concerning the childish sophism, that although it was not possible that the Church could err, yet it is not proved, that it hath erred, what should I speak? When the defender directly oppugneth that paradox which the Papists hold: namely, that the Church cannot err. To conclude, while he walketh under a cloud of the Church sanctified, and assisted by the holy Ghost, defended by the presence of Christ, etc. He playeth bo peepe under a coverlet. For what so ever promises are made to the faithful spouse of Christ, pertain nothing at all to the Popish Church of Antichrist, which is departed from the faith, carrying the brandmarks of hypocrisy, in prohibition of marriage and meats, so evident, that all the water in the sea can not wash them out.   

CAP. XI.  
Objections out of the News Testament moved and assoiled. 
Stapleton.   
The first objection is the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, that is the Church, Matth. 24. He asketh where the defender hath learned to expound this holy place of the Church? Forsooth where M. Stapleton learned, that it may be understood of the temple at jerusalem, where Pilate placed Caesar's image, or of the Image of Adriane. Namely, in Jerome, upon this text Matth. 24. which understandeth the abomination of desolation to be Antichrist, of whom Saint Paul speaketh, whom he denieth not, but that he shall sit in the Church: his words are these. De hoc & Apostolus loquitur, quòd homo iniquitatis & adversarius elevandus sit contra omne quod dicitur Deus & colitur: ita ut audeat stare in templo Dei, & ostendere quòd ipse sit Deus: cuius adventus secundum operationem satanae destruat eos, & ad Dei solitudinem redigat, qui se susceperint, Potest autem simpliciter aut de Anti christo accipi, aut de imagine Caesaris, etc. Of this abomination of desolation the Apostle also speaketh, that the man of sin, and the adversary shallbe lifted up against all that is called God, or worshipped: so that he dare stand in the temple of God, and show himself as God: whose coming, according to the working of Satan, may destroy them & bring them to solitariness from God, which shall receive him: and it may either be taken simply of antichrist, or of the image of Caesar, etc.  
Let him now reason with Hieronyme, how the sacrifice should cease after the end of 62. weeks? Although for my part, I think, the pollution of the temple, which was a token of the desolation imminent, was a figure of the corruption of the Church by antichrist.  
The 2. objection. S. Paul witnesseth that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God, that is in the Church. What of this? (saith he) will it follow that he hath sitten there these 900. years? As though the defender were to prove how long Antichrist should sit, and not rather that the visible and outward multitude of the Church should err.  
Like madness, shall I say, or impudence, he showeth, where he saith, the protestants commonly name S. Gregory to be that Antichrist. Which I am sure he never read nor heard any protestant affirm. But the Pope cannot be Antichrist (saith he) because Antichrist should then labour to extirp the faith of Christ, for the Pope hath called people from infidelity to Christianity. That letteth not, but that he is Antichrist: for the Pope calleth none but unto the name of Christianity, under colour of which, he exerciseth tyranny, otherwise he laboureth to extirp the faith of Christ, and to prefer himself before Christ, whose redemption, he teacheth to take away only the guilt of sin, whereas his pardon taketh away, both the pain and the guilt of sin.  
The third objection is out of S. Peter, that in the Church should be many masters and teachers of lies: But these (saith he) shall not tarry 900. years, for their destruction sleepeth not. A wise shift, as though the Apostle gave not a general admonition, for the Church in all ages, even in that wherein he lived himself.  
The last is out of 1. Tim. 4. that in the latter days such should come, which shall give ear to the doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry and eat such meats as God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. In this matter he professeth to be short, as he hath no lust to tarry being in that, wherein his cauterized conscience is so galled. But he answereth briefly, it was fulfilled in the Manichees, what then? doth it follow that it is not fulfilled in the Papists? Doth the spirit speak evidently of the Manichees, an obscure heresy, and not rather of the Apostasy of Antichrist, whose hypocrisy should be cloaked by feigned chastity and fasting? No no, Master Stapleton, your conscience although marked with a hot iron, yet can not but inwardly confess, that this prophesy pertaineth especially to Papistry, the greatest heresy that ever was.   

CAP. XII.  
Other common objections of protestants, taken out of the law, 
Stapleton.  discussed and assoiled.  
The objections are these: where was the outward face of the Church in the time of Noah, 
Fulke.  in the time of the departing of the ten tribes, in the days of Elias? He answereth out of Augustine De unitate ecclesiae against the Donatists, cap. 12. which made the same objections, that as these examples of fewness of the Church are read in the Scriptures, so the Church to be dispersed over all the world, is read in the same Scriptures, and therefore it can not be restrained to the communion of Donatus in Affirica.  
The like say we, (how of ever it pleaseth his malice to slander us) that the Church is and was these 1500. years dispersed over the whole world, and therefore can not be restrained to the faction or communion of the Pope in a part of Europe.  
Concerning the apostasy of the 10. tribes, he answereth, that the Clergy, vide licet the Priests and Levites, remained in sound religion, and many of the people, so God hath his Church always, which we deny not. Yet in the days of Manasse, where can he show me any Clergy of the jews that continued in sound religion? And yet I doubt not, but there were some particular persons, for GOD had his Church among them even then. But the outward face of the Church, was all turned into idolatry and false worshipping of God. Where he saith; except the Church had remained in Europe these 900. years, protestants should not have had from whence to depart. I answer, protestants are not departed out of the Church of Christ, but out of Babylon. And yet I acknowledge, that there were members of Christ's Church dispersed, yea and Churches gathered also in the time of deepest ignorance, in most regions of Europe, though not regarded, or condemned for heretics, in Calabria, in France, in England, in Bohemia. Finally whereas he would seem to repair the Pope's loss in Europe, with the recovery of large countries in the East, wise men may easily see, and fools also may laugh at it, how vain a brag it is, to boast of matters so far of as none can bear witness of, but himself, and such as he is.   

CAP. XIII.  
That the true Church of Christ, 
Stapleton.  which continueth for ever, is a visible and known Church, no privy or secret congregation.  
His name is Thomas forsooth, and therefore he saith, 
Fulke.  he will never believe, that there was any other Church, but the Church of Rome, except he may so see it, that he may point to it with his finger. But gentle Thomas, our Saviour Christ saith, blessed are they that believe & see not. If the catholic Church of Christ might be seen at any time, it should be no article of our faith, which is an evidence of things that are not seen, Heb. 11. The members thereof, as several congregations, are seen, sometimes of many of all sorts of men, sometimes of them only, that are true members of them, but jerusalem which is above, and is the mother of all the faithful, is not seen, but with the eyes of faith. Therefore Thomas, if you will never believe the Catholic Church, except you see it with your bodily eyes, you can never be any member thereof.  
You allege out of Esay 2. The hill of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of all hills, etc. This is fulfilled in the calling of the Gentiles, which have not ceased to walk in the light of our God▪ since they were first called, though not always in like numbers, not always in favour with the powers of the world, nor always in sight of the blind worldlings. And Christ is the light of the Gentiles, 
Es. 49.  unto the uttermost parts of the earth, therefore not unto one part of Europe only, as you Popish Donatists do affirm. And the Apostles were the light of the world to carry the light of salvation unto the furthermost parts of the earth. 
Matth. 5. Es. 61.  And their seed shallbe known among the Gentiles, and their buds among the people. All that see them shall know them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed. The Church of the Gentiles, confesseth the seed of Abraham, which sometimes was obscure and known to few, to be the blessed seed, and rejoiceth that by faith she is engrafted into the stock of Abraham, to be partaker of the same blessing.  
All this proveth no light, sight, or knowledge of a Church to be pointed at with unfaithful Thomas his finger, but heavenly, spiritual, and to be discerned by faith.  
Again when Esay sayeth: God hath prepared his arm in the eyes of all nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God, 
Es. 52.  he meaneth to the elect and chosen of all nations, to the predestinate people. Not only so sir Protestant: Why so sir Papist? The Prophet sayeth further, Quibus non est narratum, viderunt, & qui non audiverunt contemplati sunt. Such as the Messiah hath not been preached unto, yet they have seen. And such as have not heard, have yet beholden.  
Ergo not the Elect only: What then sir Papist, tag and rag, all the reprobate of all times: is this your interpretation? But Thomas? I pray you give us leave to believe the interpretation of S. Paul before you, who expoundeth it clean contrary to you. Romans 15. ver. 20. Yea I enforced myself to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should have built on an other man's foundation. But as it is written: 
Es. 52.  To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see, and they that heard not shall understand. Lo Thomas, Saint Paul expoundeth this text of them which had seen Christ and known the Gospel, first, by his preaching, and not of such as the Messiah hath not been preached to. Therefore be no more unfaithful, but believe the Catholic Church, though it can not be seen. Yet will he not leave the matter so, for Esay prophesieth.  
That the Lord would be a perpetual light and glory of his Church: That the sun of the Church shall not go down any more, nor the moon vade, because the Lord shall be her everlasting light. Nations shall walk in their light, and kings in the brightness of her arising.  
Verily Thomas, though our bodily eyes can not see this, yet do we most constantly believe, that it is fulfilled in the Church as it was promised.  
But that the external brightness of the Church is ☜ not promised to be in all ages alike, we may clearly see by this, that he saith: Kings shall walk in the brightness of thy rising up. For every age of the Church hath not had kings to walk in the brightness of her light.  
Let Thomas which will not believe the continuance of our Church, except it be so showed that he may point at it with his finger: Let him I say point out with his finger, what Kings in every age for the space of the first three hundredth years, did walk in the brightness of the Churches arising. It will not serve him to name Algarus of Edessa, or Lucius of Britain. But he must show a continual succession of Kings for all that time, or if he can not, let him confess, that the external glory and brightness of the Church, is not in all ages to be seen, as the spiritual magnificence and light thereof is everlasting.  
His next reason is, of the continuance of Pastors and teachers in the Church, which he imagineth to have failed in our Church, for nine hundredth years, but he is altogether deceived. For when the state of the romish Church was grown to be such a confuse Babylon, that it was necessary for GOD'S people to go out of it. Apoc. Chap. 18. verse 4. Which came not to the full ripeness of iniquity, until a thousand years after Christ, GOD sent Pastors and teachers to his Church so departed out of Babylon, in these parts of Europe, which continued by succession, even until GOD restored his Gospel into open light of the world again.  
Beside that a great number of Eastern Churches, have continued even from the Apostles time unto this day, though not in soundness of all opinions, yet in open profession of Christianity, among whom doubtless, some retained the foundation always, which were never obedient to the see of Rome, neither partakers of a great number of her horrible heresies, so that if it were granted, that the Church must always be visible, yet the Papists are never the near, to prove their faction to be the Church, because the Greek Church, for outward show of a Church, hath been always as notorious in the East, as the Latin Church in the West.  
Finally, where Augustine sayeth (although upon a text wrongly interpreted) that the Church is placed in the sun, that is, a manifest place of the world, not in a corner, like the conventicles of heretics. He meaneth not, that the Church is always seen of all men, but that it seeketh no corners or coverture of darkness, as heretics do, to shroud their falsehood in: although in the time of persecution it be driven into straits, and is content to be hidden from the adversaries thereof, except in some cases, where the glory of CHRIST requireth an open confession.  
The same Augustine, would have the Church to be known only by the Scriptures De unitate Ecclesiae. Cap. 16. Sed utrum ipst Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi divinarum scripturarrum Canonicis libris ostendunt. But whether they hold the Church, let them show by none otherways, but by the Canonical books of the holy Scriptures. If the Papists were able to prove their doctrine by the scriptures, they would not labour so much for the title of the Church, which of necessity would follow them if they taught nothing but that, and all that, which the holy Scriptures do teach.   

CAP. XIIII.  
Three reasons why the Church of Christ ought of necessity always to be a clear, 
Stapleton.  evident, visible, and known Church. In the second of which reasons a sensible disputation is made to try whether our country among other might possibly have attained to the right Faith without the help of a known Church, in all this pretenced time of Papistry.  
The first reason is, that except the Church and true pastors thereof might be openly known, 
Fulke.  the infidel seeking for Christianity shall come from paganism to heresy etc. the grace and gift of Christ should be unprofitable as a rich treasure fast locked up etc. which were inconvenient in many respects etc. therefore the Church must be openly known and evident etc. I answer: this reason savoureth of Pelagianisme, which is enemy to the grace of God, presupposing that Infidels of their own good motion, without the grace of God, may seek Christianity. But if we remember what our Saviour Christ saith: No man cometh unto me, except my father draw him: joan. 6. ver. 44. We must acknowledge, that as it is the only grace of God, that moveth in infidels a desire to seek Christ, so the same grace, and no outward appearance, to be judged by carnal reason, shall direct them, whom he hath chosen to eternal life, among so many sects in the world, to find, see, and acknowledge the only true Church, and pillar of truth, out of which there is no salvation. Wherefore this reason hath no ground, but upon a supposition of Pelagianisme, that GOD hath only revealed his truth unto men of the world, and left men to their own reason to find it out by external notes, such as Infidels not lightened by God's grace, by the light of natural reason may discern.  
The second reason is, that it hath pleased God, that because The second reason is, that it hath pleased God, that because faith leaneth upon authority, and authority is strong in a multitude, although in the primitive Church by miracles & evident gifts of the holy ghost, the authority of a few drew whole countries to the faith, yet miracles ceasing, to keep the Church always in a known multitude, whose authority might draw the simple, persuade the learned, and keep out the heretics. If this carnal reason were good, there were small or no use of the scriptures at all. The authority of the Church, and that always known, might suffice for all matters. But Augustine (saith he) in his book de uxilitate credendi, ad Honoratum. Cap. 14. useth this reason to bring Honoratus from the Manichees to the Catholics, out of whom he citeth a long discourse to this effect: That as the common multitude and fame moveth a man to believe, that there was such a one as Christ, and that his writings and scriptures are to be credited, so of the head rulers of that multitude, and not of any privy and new sect, such as the Manichees was, he must learn the understanding of this book and scriptures. This he taketh upon him to exemplify, by the state of our country, at the first conversion thereof by Augustine. Although this carnal reason might have some show with Honoratus, a stranger from the Church, and one not lightened with the spirit of God: yet how vain it is, being applied to the Papists, you may easily see by this, that since the Church of Rome hath been the Church of Antichrist, as great a multitude, which might and hath moved many infidels to receive the profession of Christianity, hath been separated from it, as hath cleaved to it. Put the case then of an infidel in the East, which moved by the fame and consent of many nations, hath thought well of Christ, hath given credit to the Scriptures: to what head rulers should be resort for instruction in the Scriptures? to the rulers of that multitude, by which he was first moved to believe? then should he never become a Papist: For all the patriarchs of the East Church have been and are still at utter defiance with the Pope of Rome. You see therefore by plain demonstration, that this reason holdeth no further than Augustine's authority extendeth: who in other places appealeth only to the Scriptures, and even against the Manichees confesseth, that the plain demonstration of the truth (which is to be found in the holy Scriptures) is to be preferred before the consent of nations, authority of miracles, succession of Bishops, universality, consent, name of the Catholic Church, and whatsoever can be taught beside, Contra Epist. Manich. quam vocant fundamenti Cap. 4.  
The third reason, why the Church must always be a known multitude, is for keeping out of wolves and heretics, which must be, that they which are tried, may be made manifest, which cannot be in a secret congregation. Yes M. Stapleton, very well. The Church was never so secret, but it was known to the members of it, which might use the authority thereof, for trying, avoiding, and excommunicating of heretics, according to the holy scriptures. But evermore you do wilfully deceive yourself, when you affirm that there was no Christians known in the world by the space of 900. years but Papists. You cannot deny, but Brytannie, scotland, & Ireland had Christians at and since the coming of Augustine, which were no Papists, as by the history of Beda is manifest. What should I here name so many nations of Europe, Asia, and Africa? which yet to this day continue in profession of Christianity, & never were subject to the tyranny of the romish bishop, and from whom the Romish bishop, with his sect of Papists, hath clearly departed many hundredth years ago. Wherefore, according to Augustine's sentence: the Catholic church is not a particular sect in Europe, but an universal gathering of the dispersed over all the world, 
Cont. Faust. li. 13. Ca 13.  where God hath his elect in all places. Or if you understand the Church for a visible multitude professing Christ, there is no reason why the churches of the East, so many, so large, so ancient, should be excluded, and the multitude of Papists holding of one city in Italy only, to be received.   

CAP. XV.  
A number of shameless shifts and silly surmises, 
Stapleton.  which Protestants have invented to establish their variable doctrine, and to confound the authority of the Church.  
In deed a number of these which he rehearseth as shameless shifts, are shameless lies and impudent slanders, devised by the devil, to bring the truth in disdain: but yet so openly proved to be false, 
Fulke.  that they need no confutation. First he sayeth, that Luther condemned all counsels and fathers, yea, all learning of Philosophy and humanity, so that books were burned, and common schools ceased for certain years in Germany, with other like monstrous lies, alleging for his author that beastly Apostata Staphylus. This slander deserveth no answer, being raised by one shameless liar against an hundredth thousand witnesses.  
The second shift is, that Luther did afterward receive Philosophy, and books of humanity, yea & divines of▪ 500 or 600. years, and some Counsels also, with this perilous condition, so far as they repugned not to holy Scripture. This seemeth an unreasonable condition to Stapleton, who belike would have all gentylitie, and many heresies absolutely receyed.  
The third: The fathers should not be admitted, when they taught any thing beside the express scripture. As worshipping of Images, praying to Saints, etc. which they had by tradition. If such things came from the Apostles, why were they not written by them, as well as such fathers of later time? yea, why did the Apostles writ that which is contrary to such traditions?  
The fourth: The first 600. years they did admit, because they knew there was little in them against them clear & open, because few books were written in that time, and many lost that were written. And yet there remain more written in that time than a man can well read over in seven years. Again cities being stuffed with heathen, jews, and heretics, every mystery was not opened in pulpit, nor committed to writing. These belike were greater mysteries than the Apostles and Evangelists have committed to writing. But I marvel how they were taught, if neither in pulpit nor in writing, belike in secret confession, but our Saviour Christ would have his mysteries preached in the house tops. Last of all, for that many controversies now in hand were never heard of in those days. Therefore M. jewel made his challenge of the first 600. years, which Stapleton thinketh he was not able to abide by, and that M. Nowell suspected no less, because he accounted it a very large scope. But how he hath abiden by it, is sufficiently proved to the glory of the truth, and the confusion of Papistry.  
The fifth: They reject the latter 900. years, because Paynims yielding to the faith, and heretics to the Church, the mysteries of our faith were more openly published in Pulpits & writings. It appeareth, and that in records of the latter 900. years, that many old heretics still remained in the cities, beside the jews remaining until this day, of which he made the fathers of the first 600 years so much afraid, for uttering the mysteries, a● of Paynims and heretics.  
The sixth: Some hold, that all the Church might err for a time. None ever held that all the Church might err so far, as that they fell away from Christ.  
The seventh: Other said, there was a Church all this 900 years, but oppressed by the miscreants, being privy and unknown. This he saith is vain & blasphemous, being against holy Scripture and good reason, as he hath proved. What he hath proved, you have seen, and how the Scripture must be fulfilled, which prophesieth of the coming of Antichrist, and the apostasy of men from the faith: which cannot be, if the Church should always flourish in multitude & external appearing of visible glory.  
The eight: That Protestants books have been lost.  
The ninth: Books of holy fathers have been corrupted.  
The tenth: False writings have been devised and fathered upon the first Popes of Rome. All these he counteth to be but suspicions & surmises, which are yet so manifest truths, that even Thomas the unbelieving Apostle without the judgement of his senses, might feal them with both his hands, and be satisfied, although Thomas the Apostata from God, and traitor to his Prince & country will neither see nor handle them. But all these surmises he will overthrow with supposing one case. If a man have continued in possession, and could bring records of his right from William the Conqueror, and all his neighbours to say for his quiet possession, without check or nay, as the Papists can deduct the possession of their religion from 800. years, etc. were it a good plea against such a man to say: his records are false, his evidences forged, his possession injurious, etc. without bringing in any affirmative proofs, records, evidence, or witness, etc. I answer, it were no good plea. But first I deny, that you Papists can bring such records, witness, and possession of 900. years. And secondly, I affirm that we can bring good records, evidences, and witness to the contrary. Wherefore this case helpeth you nothing at all, as it is false that the religion now called Papistry hath been professed these 900. years, which I have proved by more than 40. differences, gathered out of the history of Bede, and other monuments of antiquity.   

CAP. XVI.  
A note of countries and provinces brought to the faith of Christ from Paganism, 
Stapleton.  within the compass of those latter 900 years.  
He beginneth with the conversion of the English Saxons and Brittany, 
Fulke.  and so proceedeth to the conversion of divers small nations in Germany, and other parts: last of all, he cometh to the conversion of many thousands in the Isle of Goa, testified by letters of the jesuits, all which he maketh to be converted into one faith and religion of Papistry. But that is false, for I have proved by many differences, that although the first beginning of these 900. years was corrupt in many things, yet was it not so corrupt as Papistry, nor agreeing with Papists in many of their chief heresies for 300. or 400. years after. Now touching such as have been converted to plain Popery since that time, or by the jesuits in this time, if their monstrous reports be credible, it proveth not that they are of an Apostolic spirit. The Scribes and Pharisees were zealous to make Proselytes to judaisme. The great and mighty nations of the Goths, Vandals, Huns, etc. that overran the greatest part of the Roman Empire, were converted from Gentility by the Arrians, whose heresy along time they held, as all histories do record. The Nestorians converted great nations that yet continued in their heresy. Photius the heretic converted the Bulgarians. Finally, the Greek Church hath converted as many nations unto their profession of Christianity, as the Romans have done to their Papistry: wherefore this argument of conversion of nations doth no more prove Papistry to be true Christianity, than it doth justify judaisme, Arrianisme, Nestorianisme, Grecisme, which the Papists count to be an heresy as well as the other.   

CAP. XVII.  
Whether at any time the religion of Protestants have converted any infidels to the faith. 
Stapleton.   
The religion which we hold, whom he calleth Protestants, 
Fulke  being the same which was delivered by Christ himself and his Apostles, hath converted all nations of the world that ever were converted, from infidelity to the true faith and religion of Christ. Wherefore it is a foolish fantasy, that he requireth us to show one country, city, or man, converted within these 900. years. If Protestants could brag as well as the jesuits, they might boast of many thousands converted by them in the new found lands of Gallia Antarctica, and India, beside many jews that are known to be turned to the Christian faith in this part of the world. If in the time of persecution, when they had much ado to save their own faith from deceiving, and their lives from cruelty, they had no leisure to travel into Heathen countries, to seek the conversion of infidels, no wise man will marvel. The slanderous reports of Villegagnon and the jesuits are of as good credit, as their persons are of honesty and soundness of religion.   

CAP. XVIII.  
The argument of continuance of the known Church, 
Stapleton.  is fortified out of the most ancient and learned Fathers.  
The ancient and learned Fathers, never allowed any continuance of the Catholic Church and faith, but such as had their beginning at Christ & his Apostles, and not such as began five or six hundredth years after Christ, 
Fulke.  as all the testimonies which he citeth, do plainly prove unto us. First Augustine, Ep. 166. reproveth the Donatists. For that they would not acknowledge the Church which Christ himself had planted, and which had continued even until that time. But it pleaseth this man greatly, which Augustine writeth. Cont. Ep. Parm. lib. 3. cap. 5. That there is no security of unity, except the Church be declared out of the promises of God, which as it is said, being set upon an hill can not be hid, and therefore it is necessary that it be known to all parts of the earth. The known Church. that Augustine speaketh of, is not the peculiar Church of Rome, but the universal Church of Christ dispersed over all the world: which is in such sort known & seen, as the mountain whereon it is builded, is known and seen. But that mountain is Christ, spoken of in Daniel, which is not known or seen but by faith, no more is the universal Church of Christ known or seen but by faith. And thus he writeth against the Donatists, which challenged the society of the just to be only in Africa, whereon as also that the mountain in the which the Church is set, is Christ, August. writeth in the same chapter. Qui ergo non vult sedere in concilio vanitatis, non evanescat typho superbiae, quaerens conventicula, justorum totius orbis unitate separata, quae non potest invenire. justi autem sunt per universam civitatem, quae abscondi non potest, quia supra montem constituta est. Montem illum dico Dani●lis, in qu● lapis ille praecisus sine manibus, crevit & implevit universam terram. Per totam igitur istam civitatem toto orb diffusam, justi gemunt & moerent, ob iniquitates quae sunt in medio eorum. He therefore that will not sit in the council of vanity, let him not vanish away in swelling of pride, seeking the conventicles of the just, separated from the unity of all the world, which he can not find. Now the just are throughout the whole city, which can not be hid, because it is set upon an hill. I mean, that hill of Daniel, in which that stone being cut off without hands increased, and filled the whole earth. Therefore in all this city dispersed over all the world, the just do groan and mourn, for the iniquities which are in the midst of them.  
Thus Augustine being rightly understood, maketh altogether against the schismatical Church of Rome, which is not set upon that mountain which is invisible to the eye of the flesh, but seeketh the utter ruin of that city which being builded on Christ, is known in all parts of the world by faith.  
But Hieronyme saith much for the matter, Contra Luciferianos. I could dry up all the streams of thy propositions, with the fame of the Church. And who doubteth, but where the Church is acknowledgeth to be, the clear doctrine thereof may stop the mouth of any heretic which acknowledgeth it for the Church? The same Hieronyme Ad Dam. mach. & Oceanum de error▪ Orig. cur post etc. writeth thus: Why after 400. years labourest thou to teach us which we knew not before? Why dost thou bring forth that which Peter and Paul would never teach? Even until this day the Christian world was without thes doctrine, I will hold that faith an old man in which I was borne a child. A worthy saying of Jerome, which may be rightly applied against the Papists, which teach such doctrine, as neither Peter nor Paul would ever teach, nor the Christian world knew for 600. years after Christ, yea for almost a thousand years after Christ in many points. The like force is in the saying of Gregory Nazianzen, against the Arrian, Ep. 2. ad Clidon. Si ante hos triginti etc. If our faith began but 30. years ago, when there are almost 400. years since Christ was showed, and the Gospel hath for so long space been in vain, our faith also hath been in vain: and they which have given witness thereto, have testifid in vain, so many and so worthy prelate's in vain have governed the people. This saying is verified of Christian faith, which had continued in the world six, seven, or eight hundredth years, before Papistry in many points began, Christ hath been preached, and yet Papistry never heard of, yea what so ever doctrine had a latter beginning then Christ and his Apostles, this father condemneth of error. Even as the same man writeth in the other place by M. Stapl. cited, De Theod. li. 2. Vt haec praesidia omittam etc. To omit these helps, yet it should satisfy us, that none of those which have been inspired with the spirit of God, hath hitherto either pronounced this sentence, or allowed it being uttered by any other, and the doctrine of our church doth abhor it. He braggeth not upon the present opinion of the Church, but as the same hath always been allowed of all the Apostles and their successors, and the contrary never received. Therefore whereas Theodoret reporteth that that confession of the faith was admitted (in the Council of Nice) which prevailed, & was published throughout the world, he meaneth not that the Fathers followed either the multitude, or the common opinion of men, which were reputed for the Church in that time, but because the same confession had always even from the beginning, been received and continued in the Church, as consonant & agreeable to the word of God, by which the Church must be tried to be the true Church, & whereas articles of faith are not proved true, because they be held by them that are commonly taken to be of the Church. To conclude: The prescription of Tertullian against Hermogenes we do willingly admit, & offer to be tried thereby: that whether of our religion or theirs is the more ancient, that undoubtedly must be truth. But then the prescription of 900. years whereof Stapl. so often & so much doth cackle, will not serve the Papists, as they cannot prescribe scarce half so long, for many of their opinions. For except we be able to prove our religion, as ancient as the time of Christ and his Apostles, we refuse not to be accounted heretics. If we teach nothing but that we can justify, by manifest demonstration out of the holy Scriptures, the same also in the most principal points, being confirmed with the testimony of the ancient fathers of the primitive Church, the Papists which accuse us of heresy, shall be found not only to be heretics, but blasphemers of God, and slanderers of his Saints.   

CAP. XIX.  
It is proved by three reasons or arguments deducted out of holy Scripture, 
Stapleton.  that all the time of Papistry can be no schism on heresy, and therefore was true Christianity.  
The first reason is this. No heresy or schism is universal. 
Fulke.  The faith of England these 900. years was universal, ergo, it was no schism or heresy. The minor which is false, he would prove by this reason. The faith of England was the faith of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and of all other Christian countries, therefore it was universal. This antecedent is false, for beside that in England, France, Spain, Italy, etc. since the Church of Rome ceased to be the Church of Christ, there were always true Christians, which yielded not to Papistry: as many regions as he hath named of the East country, held not the faith which was then openly received in England, in many principal articles, & namely in that which they make to be the chief of all, the article of the Pope's supremacy and subjection to the Church of Rome: therefore all Christened countries were not of the same faith of Papistry these 900. years. He laboureth like a wise man to prove that no sect is universal: but that Popery was universal, it is sufficient for Papists to say, because they are never able to prove it.  
The second reason is, that no heresy is of long continuance to prevail over true believers, to oppress the truth, etc. Papistry hath continued these 900. years, therefore Papistry is no heresy. Although the minor be not simply true, yet the maior is utterly false. But he would prove the mayor out of S. Paul, 2. Tim. 3. saying of such as should withstand the truth, like jannes' and Jambres, that they should not further prevail, for their foolishness shall be made known to all men, even as theirs was. Admit that this were spoken of those which should forbid marriage and meats which he would have to be the Manichees, 1. Tim. 4. as it is spoken of hypocrites, which shall be in the Church to the end of the world, yet here is no shortness of time prescribed for the continuance of their error, for he said before, 2. Tim. 2. vers. 16. That they shall increase unto more ungodliness, and their word shall fret as a canker. He meaneth therefore, that they shall not long continue unknown, not to all men, but to all faithful and godly men, as the folly of jannes' and Jambres was not made manifest to all the Egyptians, but unto the Israelites. Likewise, whereas Peter saith, 2 Peter 2. That the destruction of false Prophets sleepeth not, he meaneth not, but that they may have by succession a long continuance in the world, for he himself admonisheth us, that we may not count the Lords delaying of judgement to be slackness, as Stapleton doth, if it should be deferred 900. years: for one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Heretics therefore shall have a quick judgement, & heresy shall shortly have an end: for that neither of both shall continued always uncondemned. But that his mayor proposition is utterly false, which is: No heresy is of long continuance; I show by these instances. The heresy of them that joined Circumcision with the Gospel, is more than 1500. years old, and yet it continueth in Africa among Aethiopians, as witnesseth Munster and other writers of Geography, as also the heresy of the Nestorians, which is 1200. years old, and yet continueth among the Georgians. Finally, so ancient as the full tyranny of the Pope is, so ancient is the departure of the Greek and Eastern Churches from him, which they count to be a schism and heresy.  
The third reason: No heresy can continue and overgrow the true Church, Papistry hath continued, Ergo: Papistry is no heresy. The minor of this syllogism is false, for Papistry hath not continued from the time of Christ, but hath had her beginning long since, and was not grown to a ripeness of all her heresies in more than a thousand years after Christ▪ as I have showed in the table of differences. Therefore what so ever he saith to prove the mayor, is to no purpose, when the minor is manifestly false.   

CAP. XX.  
The third reason of the former chapter, 
Stapleton.  is fortified out of the aunicient and learned Fathers.  
Now he taketh in hand a goodly piece of fortification, 
Fulke.  and like a worthy surveyor of the Pope's buildings, he bestoweth great cost out of Hilarius, Chrysostom, and Clemens Alexandrinus, for defence of such a point, as none of his adversaries would ever offer to assail. Nameley, the continuance of the Church, and true religion, which can not be overcome, not kept down by any tyranny or heresy, but the more it is persecuted and oppressed, the more it will flourish and increase. And for this cause the true Church and faith of Christ, although it have been long trodden down and afflicted by the tyranny of Antichrist, even to such time as God had appointed, that Antichrist should rage's in the world, for the sins thereof, and especially for the contempt of the truth, 2. Thess. 2. yet hath it in the end prevailed, increased, and flourished, and by no craft or cruelty of Antichrist, could any longer be suppressed or kept under. Let not Papists therefore brag, that they have prevailed so long, but let them now behold their overthrow, by the increase of God's Church, and look for their final destruction, at the glorious appearing of our Saviour Christ. We doubt not therefore, but determine with Augustine De utilitate credendi, to rest in the bosom of that Church, which from the seat of the Apostle, by consent of mankind, hath continued by succession of Bishops, and hath obtained the height of authority, all heretics barking about it, which partly by the judgement of the people partly by the gravity of Counsels, partly by the majesty of miracles have been condemned. But we utterly deny the Popish Church to be this Church, which hath had no continuance of succession from the Apostles seat, in faith and doctrine, though it claim never so much the succession of persons and places: with the Donatists, Simon Magus, Martion, Eunomius, and other heretics, we have nothing to do. If truth in Aerius and Vigilantius was condemned for error, not by the scriptures, but by the tradition of men, such condemnation can be no prejudice to them or their opinion, when being called again into judgement, they are found by sentence of God's word, & the judgement of the more ancient Fathers, to have been wrongfully condemned. To conclude, Papistry hath not prevailed against the church of God, which having sought by all means so long time to root her out of the earth, yet was never able to bring to pass her wicked device, but that the Church of Christ, and the true religion thereof, hath at last, in the sight of all men, gotten the upper hand, in despite of the Pope and Papistry, and all Papists.    

THE SECOND part of the Fortress.  

CAP. I.  
Certain demands to Protestants, 
Stapleton.  putting the case that Papists these many hundredth years have lived in a wrong faith: all which (the case so put) they ought of necessity to satisfy.  
WHat so ever the Protestants can say for themselves (as their credit is not great with him) except they can prove one of his two demands, 
Fulke.  he thinketh no godly or wise man will regard any thing they can say.  
The first demand is, where, or under what Pope, or Emperor, Papistry began. I answer, Papistry being antichristianity, the mystery of that iniquity began even in the time of the Apostles, 2. Thess. 2. Claudius' being Emperor of Rome, and so continued increasing in Apostasy, until the time of Sigismond the Emperor, who procured the Council of Constance, in which the lay people were rob of the cup of the lords blood. Stapleton must bear with me, if I can not name the Pope, because at that time there were no less than three Popes at once, and no man then living, but as he was affectionate to one of those three, could determine which of them was Pope. This Stapleton, though he have a brazen face, will not deny. He requireth us further to show the complaint of other Churches against Papistry. First, for the beginning of the mystery of iniquity S. Paul complaineth, 2. Thess. 2. And for the proceeding of that which was the chief point thereof, namely the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, always as it showed itself, some there were which complained of it. Victor is the first Bishop of Rome, which discovered the hid mystery of iniquity, in usurping against his fellow Bishops, in the time of the Emperor Severus, against whom complained & sharply reproved him Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, Polycrates, and many other, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25. Afterward in the days of Theodosius, Honorius, and Arcadius, the Emperors, when the Bishops of Rome Innocentius, Bonifacius, Zosimus, Anastasius, and Celestinus usurped more openly, in so much that they forged among them a decree of the Council of Nice, whereby they claimed their authority, they were complained of by the Bishops and Church of Africa in open Council, the forgery detected, and decrees made, that none in Africa should appeal to any Bishop over the Sea. And that the Bishop of the first See should not be called prince of Priests, nor by any such name of pride, but only Bishop of the first See. Conc▪ Milevit. c. 22. Conc. Carth. 6. cap. 4. Conc. African c. 92. & Ep. Concil. ad Bonifac. & Caelestinum.  
Afterward in the days of the Emperor Mauritius. when john of Constantinople usurped the title of universal Bishop, as the forerunner of Antichrist, Gregory himself Bishop of Rome complained of him, and pronounced that he was the forerunner of Antichrist: Wherefore Stapleton lieth shamefully, when he saith, we make him the first Antichrist: for as I have testified before, although there was in him a superstitious affection unto ceremonies, and that he was infected with certain old errors that had prevailed before his time, yet because he held the foundation of salvation by Christ only, and detested the usurpation of that Antichristian title, we account him for a member of the true Church of Christ. But after him when in the days of Phocas, Bonifacius by pride and simony, had usurped the same Antichristian authority, and procured that the Church of Rome should be counted head of all Churches, he was complained of by the Church of Ravenna in Italy, which would not acknowledge that Antichristian title, neither would submit herself unto the whore of Babylon before the time of Donus the Pope, which was almost seventy years after: that Master Stapleton misnameth Martianus in steed of Mauritius I will impute it to no ignorance, although, if such a fault escape any of us, we are by and by cried out upon, to be ignorant in all antiquity, etc. Thus have I answered Master Stapletons' demand, concerning the principal foundation and rock of Papistry, although no necessity, such as he supposeth, doth move me. For albeit the precise time of the entering of any heresy can not be named, yet it followeth not that the same heresy is a truth therefore.  
The second demand is: when, and by whom Luther was called, when he begun to preach the Gospel? I answer, if calling of the Popish Church be lawful, as the Papists will not deny, Luther had such ordinary calling, as the Church where he lived did allow, for he was called to be a public teacher, before the Pope's pardoner came into Saxony, against whose most impudent blasphemies and shameless errors he first inveighed, in his public sermons. Wherefore concerning his vocation, the mouths of Papists ought to be stopped. But Stapleton will not be so satisfied, for he sayeth, that the Popish Church would never call him to preach against herself: that is not material: the Popish Church gave him such authority as she had to preach, which he used first to seek her reformation, if she had been reformable: but when he saw her oppose herself against the manifest truth, he had just cause to depart from her, unto the Catholic Church of CHRIST.  
It sufficeth not Stapleton, that he learned by the Scriptures, that the Church erred, because all heretics abuse the Scriptures, as though there were no certainty of truth to be found in the Scriptures, which blasphemy derogateth all authority from the holy Scriptures inspired of GOD, which the Apostle sayeth to be able to reprove all errors, that the man of GOD may be perfect prepared to all good works. 2. Tim. 3. ver. 16. Again, where he affirmeth that he had the interpretation of the Scriptures from heaven, Stapleton urgeth, that then he must show some miracle, as if the ordinary inspiration of God's spirit, (without the which no man can understand any of God's mysteries) of necessity requireth confirmation of miracles. But Luther himself (he sayeth) requireth miracles of Muncer, which boasted of Revelation, and so ought we to do of Luther. No sir, Muncer boasted of an extraordinary Revelation, and taught a doctrine directly contrary to the word of GOD written, and therefore the case is nothing like. After this he telleth a slanderous fable out of that runagate Baldwine, of the conference at Poissie, that Beza and Martyr could not agree, whether their calling was ordinary or extraordinary: the conclusion whereof was this, that Beza was ordained of Caluine, and Caluine as Beza said of none. Which how impudent and shameless a lie it is, that Beza should reprote of Caluine, it is manifest to all men, that know the story of that Church, and city of Geneva, that Caluine was called and ordained by the Church there, when he was altogether unwilling to remain in that City, but in a manner compelled by the earnest obtestation of Farellus. Cal. in Praefa, in Psalm. Beza in vita calvini.  
And yet more monstrous is that lie, that Beza should grant the rebellion that followed, to be a sign of his vocation, when the world knoweth, that the beginning of these civil wars▪ came altogether from the Papists, the Duke of Guise giving the occasion, by the devilish slaughter and buchery of Vassie. But to the principal matter in question: that Luther and some other having an extraordinary calling from God, to teach and reform the Church, need not to confirm their calling by miracles, when they teach nothing but that is confirmed by manifest authority of holy Scriptures, in the consciences of all men, that wilfully oppose not themselves against the truth, either that they will not know it, or that they will not obey it: It is evident, by so many prophets, as God stirred up, in the old time, which had no extraordinary calling of the Church, being not of the tribe of Levi, yet being only interpreters of the law, needed no signs or miracle to confirm their calling.  
Our Saviour Christ himself confirmeth the extraordinary calling of the Scribes and Pharisees, when he willeth them, to be heard sitting in Moses chair, of which yet a great number, and almost all, were no levites nor Priests, therefore had no ordinary calling.  
Yet Gregory himself in the history of Bede, at the first planting of the particular Church in England, alloweth extraordinary ordaining of Bishops. Lib. 1. Cap. 27.  
Wherefore if Luther's calling were altogether extraordinary, (as Papists can not say, except they deny the calling of their own Church) he is not bound to approve his calling by miracles, when his doctrine, and all things in which he departeth from the Church of Rome, is proved true and agreeable to the word of God.  
The third demand is, that we must show a succession from the Apostles, as the Scripture witnesseth the Church to have, and the ancient fathers exacted of Heretics.  
The Scripture requireth no succession of names, persons or places, but of faith and doctrine, and that we prove, when we approve our faith and doctrine by the doctrine of the Apostles. Neither had 
☜  the fathers any other meaning in calling upon new upstart heresies for their succession, but of a succession of doctrine, as well as of persons. Which is manifest by Tertullian De prescript, Ita per successiones etc. So coming down by successions, from the beginning that their first bishop have for his authors, and antecessors, one of the Apostles or Apostolic men, but yet such a one as hath continued with the Apostles. These words of Tertullian are manifest, that succession of Bishops even to the Apostles, helpeth not, except there be a continuance in the doctrine of the Apostles, which when the Papists can show, we will gladly yield unto them. In the mean time, it is not the continual succession of persons in any place, which teach contrary to their antecessors, which have taught in that place, that can carry away the credit of the whole doctrine, and religion of Christ.   

CAP. II.  
An Introduction to the proofs which follow in the second part of this fortress. 
Stapleton.   
Repeating what he fantasieth he hath fortified before, 
Fulke.  (which how weak it is, I have sufficiently discovered) in this Chapter: he promiseth first to declare by diverse sure and necessary tokens, which protestants do lack, that the faith then planted, was a right faith: which in many principal points, we do not deny, but that it was a right faith.  
Secondly, repeating the difference in doctrine, government, ceremonies, course and consequence of both the religions, he will prove all that they had differing from us, partly by Scripture, and partly by the faith of the first six hundredth years. To which I reply. First, that what so ever was then taught contrary to that we teach, for matter of faith, can not be proved by Scripture. Secondly, that although some errors, which then were taught, may be proved to have been held within the six hundredth years, yet they can not be proved, to have been held always, especially in the oldest times, and therefore can make no prejudice against our cause, which take not upon us to allow all things that were held in six hundredth years, no more than the Papists themselves do. Finally, I have showed as many differences of that time from the Papists, as he is able to show of us from them, and yet some of his differences are impudent forgeries.   

CAP. III.  
Five apostolical marks found in our Apostles, 
Stapleton.  and wanting in Protestants, who must be our Apostles, if the other were not.  
The Protestants take not upon them to be Apostles, 
Fulke.  but professors and teachers of the Apostolic doctrine. And therefore they boast of no miracles, which is with him the first note of Augustine's Apostleship: which miracles if they were testified to us by an Evangelist, we might well believe them: but seeing they are written by a credulous man, that recordeth every fable that was told him, we have small cause to credit them▪ Bedes history is no Gospel. Beside that, the british histories utterly deny those supposed miracles, reporting Augustine to be a minister of Satan rather than of God.  
But admit that he did some of those things, as are reported of him, it might please GOD in respect of Christian faith, which he planted among the English nation, to work some miracles by him, and yet not to allow all things that he taught. Shall not the very workers of iniquity say in that day: Lord, we have wrought miracles in thy name, Matth. 7. vers. 22. As for the miracle supposed to be done by Master Lane of Westchester, which he scorneth at, I see not, but it is as good as the best done by Augustine, and yet for mine own part, I think it was no miracle, but a natural work, the maid perhaps being affected with the mother or some such like disease.  
The lies he telleth of Luther and Caluine, out of that ungodly rascal Staphylus, I think not worthy to be spoken of: although he make himself witness of the one, and the other is a monstrous invention of Satan, which being reported to be done in a noble city, and before so many witnesses, can find none that had the brazen face like Staphylus, to say he saw it. Which making and loving of lies, showeth Papists to be the right begotten children of the devil, the father of lies.  
The miracles reported by Master Fox: the shameless beast, when he cannot deny, being testified by witnesses: above all exception he can make, affirmeth to be esteemed of his own fellows, but as civil things, and such as may happen by course of reason. I say not this as though I would have our doctrine the rather to be credited one jot more for any such miracle, but to show the shameless dogged stomach of this Popish slanderer, which when he had none other answer to make as concerning such miracles, forgeth that we ourselves deny all such to have been miracles, which he is not able to prove, although he would burst for malice against the truth.  
The second mark and difference is, that there was one heart of the believers, Augustine & his company never disagreed. The Protestants are at great variance among themselves, not for learning's sake, as the Concurrents in italy, nor upon quirks and subtleties, in matters indifferent, as the schoolmen that hold positions; but upon the weightiest articles of our belief, as heretics are wont to hold opinions.  
I answer, among them that have departed from the Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ, there hath been some variance about the lords supper, but yet in no greater matters, then hath been between two godly martyrs of the primitive Church, Cornelius of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage, about baptism, although not handled with like modesty on the one part, as was then of both: yea, no greater than as yet remaineth undecided among the Papists, touching the authority of the Pope and the Popish general Council, although they all, like Pilate and Herode, the Pharisees & Saducees, can agree together to put Christ to death, and to persecute the truth. Finally, if in the first restoring of the truth, some matters to some men were not so apparent, what marvel? when your Augustine, and ours also, as far as he was Christ's, was doubtful and ignorant, even in very small & trifling matters, which argued some dissension of opinion in him and his monks, or else those questions might have been determined without sending to Rome, li. 1. Cap. 27. etc.  
The third mark is an ordinary vocation, which Luther lacked. I deny that Augustine had an ordinary vocation to preach in England, or that the Bishop of Rome hath any ordinary authority, to send Apostles into the countries of any Infidels: which if he had, they should be the Bishop of Rome's apostles, and not the Apostles of Christ. For they be his apostles which hath authority to send them. But if Augustine had ordinary vocation by the Bishop of Rome, why had not Luther ordinary vocation of that church, which authorised him to preach. If you say he could have no ordinary vocation, because he was an heretic, I answer: It followeth not, for even heretics have had ordinary vocation: namely, so many bishops and priests of Rome, Alexandria, and other places, as after their calling have fallen into heresies. Wherefore leave his vocation, which against you is good enough, and try his doctrine. If his doctrine be found true, and agreeable to the word of God, who hath stirred him up to discover openly the heresies of Antichrist, let not his doctrine be refused for his extraordinary calling. The slanders and unlearned conclusions against Luther. I omit, as unworthy any answer, being either false lies of Staphylus, or inconsequent collections of Stapleton.  
The fourth Apostolical mark, is the continuance of 900. years, whereas the Protestants doctrine hath continued but 30. years, or as the blockheaded Papist scorneth at M. Haddon 30. years except 6. with Gamaliels' counsel upon the matter, which with this Popish priest, is good divinity: If this Council or work be of men, it will come to nought, etc. whose antecedent being true, the conclusion is stark nought. To this I answer: I have showed by many differences, that the religion brought in by Augustine, hath not continued without alteration in many points, these 900. years. And albeit it had, yet it is not thereby proved true, because diverse heresies have continued much longer time, which are not thereby justified, as of the circumcisers, Nestorians, etc. yea, Mahometisme, hath continued 900. years, begun with feigned miracles, commended by Sergius a monk, which had ordinary vocation to teach, continued with great consent these 900. years, which are 4. of Stapletons' apostolic marks, & also teacheth many things that before were unknown, which is the fifth mark.  
Whereas Protestants have added nothing to the faith of Christ, but taken many things away from it. I answer: if Augustine with him brought in all truth, and besides that some errors, which have increased in process of time, thick and threefold, Protestants were worthy of thanks for removing the errors, though they brought in no new matters of faith: as he is thanks worthy, which weedeth a garden or field, although he sow no new seeds therein. But it is most untrue, that Papists had all truth before we discovered their errors, for the doctrine of justification, of the worship of God, of the use of good works, and of the sacraments, was either almost or altogether lacking in Popery, which by the doctrine of the Gospel is restored. But now let us see what Protestants have taken away. Forsooth: From the quick, from the dead, from faith, from the Church, from Saints, from God. From the quick: free will, state of perfection, and all merit of good works. Yea, sir Pelagian, the Scripture sayeth: No quick man shallbe justified in the sight of God, Psalm. 143. v. 2. which taketh away all that you have given him. From the dead: all prayer & intercession for them. When you can allow the dead these things out of the Scripture, we will not deny it to them. From the faith: an article of Christ's dissension into hell. A lewd lie of a slanderous Papist. From the Church, as it is the whole body: five sacraments. Three more than Christ instituted. The continual assistance of God's holy spirit, promised by our Saviour. A shameful lie. And the visible sight in this world assured unto us by holy scripture. That Scripture is yet to show, whereby the Church should be promised always to be in open sight of the greatest part of the world. From the Church, as the spiritual part, they have taken supreme government in matters Ecclesiastical. None other then such as is against the Scripture: Let every soul submit itself to the higher powers, Rom. 13. ver. 1. Authority of making that which Christ had them to make in his last supper. If you say you make the body of Christ, in such sense as you affirm the sacrament to be the body of Christ, God's curse light on you. The doing of all that Christ commanded to be done in remembrance of him, we take not away. The power of binding and losing, with most of the authority due unto that estate and vocation. A very slander. From the Church they take Altars, crosses, Images, etc. Because the temple of God hath nothing to do with Images, 2. Cor. 6. ver 16. From God himself: an external sacrifice, the true proper service due to God only, and continually, as Saint Augustine proveth at large De civitate Dei. A slander of Augustine which lib. 10. Cap. 20. calleth the lords supper a sacrament of the oblation of Christ, the only singular sacrifice, so that now there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin: for by one sacrifice once offered, he hath made perfect for ever those that are sanctified, Heb. 10. ver. 14. by which only sacrifice, there was forgiveness of our sins, and where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no more sacrifice for sin, Heb. 10. 18. You see what sure and steadfast apostolic marks these are, which are found in Mahomet, as much as in Augustine, so that if Augustine had not the word of God to warrant the principal parts of the faith, which he preached in England, by these five marks, he might neither be proved to be an Apostle, nor yet a true preacher.   

CAP. FOUR  
Differences in doctrine between the primitive faith of England, 
Stapleton.  and the heresy of Protestants. And first of Mass, of the propitiation thereof: of intercession of saints: of their commemoration at Mass time: of confession of sins, and of merit of good works.  
Concerning the differences, I have written already in answer to his table of differences. 
Fulke.  Now must we see how he proveth them by testimony of the first 600. years. The first in this Chapter and sixth in number, is the Mass, whose name he may in deed find within the compass of 600. years, although otherwise taken than it is of papists, but yet from Christ until 400. years be complete, the name of Missa is not found in any ancient authentical writer. And therefore he beginneth with Ambrose in his Epistle E. 33. which place you shall find discussed in mine answer to Heskins lib. 3. Cap. 32. letting you to understand by the way, that he citeth the words otherwise then they be, and so doth M. heskin's, and yet neither of them both as they be in Ambrose: by which it appeareth, that neither of them both read them in Ambrose. Stapleton citeth them thus: Missam facere caepi: Dwum offerrem, nuntiatum est, etc. I began to say Mass: while I offered, word was brought to me, etc. Ambrose saith somewhat otherwise. The next testimonies he citeth are out of Augustine, Ser. 251. & 237. de tempore, which all learned men know to be none of Augustine's, but if they were, they be after 400. years beforesaid. The next is Leo, Ep. 81. Cap. 2. which in mine answer to Heskins before quoted, you shall find handled at large. After this follow the Canons of 7. or 8. counsels provincial, in which the name of Missa is found: but all kept above 400. years after Christ, and therefore prove not a perpetual continuance of that name from Christ until the first 600. years ended. Besides that, the Masses so named were neither inform nor matter, that which the popish Mass is. For, concerning the form, it was patched together in many parts long after the first 600. years, as their own Pontifical and other histories witness. Concerning the matter, it was not the Popish Mass, for that there was in it a Communion, and the natural body of Christ was not offered therein, which within the first 600. years, was not believed to be really and corporally in the Sacrament.  
The seventh difference is: that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and was so believed in the first 600. years. Whereof he reporteth him to Cyprian, Ser. 5. De lapsis: who saith: The conscience of sinners is purged with the sacrifice of the priest. But Cyprians words are not so, he speaketh of them, which being fallen in time of persecution, made haste to the communion without dew repentance, and public satisfaction to the church, and prayer of the priests made for their sins. Ante exomologesin factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio & manu sacerdotis: before confession of their offence being made, before their conscience be purged by sacrifice & hand of the Priest, etc. These words do show, that he meaneth none other purging of their conscience by sacrifice, then by imposition of the priests hands, which can be no propitiatory sacrifice, but the sacrifice of prayer of the priest for them: as for the sacrifice of the Mass, there is no mention of it. Again, he reporteth him to Jerome. To. 1. in iovinianum, saying: The Priest to offer daily for his own sins, and the people. Neither are Hieromes words as he citeth them, but thus: Sacerdoti, cui semper pro populo offerenda sunt sacrificia, semper orandum est. The Priest which must always offer sacrifice for the people, must always pray. Where is here the sacrifice propitiatory of the Mass? when Hyeronyme expoundeth his sacrifice for prayer, in the second part of the same work, saying that Christ In typo sanguinis sui non obiulit aquam, sed vinum. In the figure or type of his blood offered not water but wine. Both denieth transubstantiation & the carnal presence, & also expresseth, what manner of oblation he meaneth, when he useth the name of sacrifice, offering, oblation, namely a sacrifice of thanksgiving in remembrance of Christ's death. Thirdly he reporteth himself to Ambrose, lib. 1. Offic. Cap. 48. who affirmeth: Christ to be yet offered in the Church for the remission of our sins. But the report of Ambrose is clean against him. Antè agnus offerebatur, offerebatur vitulus. Nunc Christus offertur: sed offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem, & offered se ipse quasi sacerdos, ut peccata nostra remittat Hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud parem pro nobis quasi advocatus interuenit. Before a lamb was offered, a calf was offered. Now Christ is offered: but he is offered as a man, as suffering his passion, and he offereth himself as a priest, that he may forgive our sins. Here in an image, there in truth, where he maketh intercession for us as an advocate with the father. What can be more evident against the sacrifice of the Mass? then that he sayeth, Christ is offered here in an image, not in truth: he is offered by himself, not by a popish priest: he is offered as a man suffering his passion, therefore not in an unbloody sacrifice, but in an image of his bloody sacrifice.  
Fourthly, he reporteth himself to Gregory Nazianzene Orat. 1. in julianum, who sayeth, that by the oblation of this sacrifice we are made partakers of the passion of Christ. He speaketh not of the Mass, but thus he saith: Mox incruenti sacrificii oblatione manus commaculat, per quod nor Christo unimur, nec non passionis ac divinitatis eius participes reddimur. Anon he defileth his hands with the offering of the unbloody sacrifice, by which we are united to Christ, and are made partakers of his passion and divinity. He calleth the ministration of the communion, the oblation of the unbloody sacrifice, as the fathers of that time did speak unproperly. But else where he showeth expressly, that the only sacrifice of Christ's death, is a propitiatory sacrifice, and such as cannot be repeated. In sanct Pasc. Or. 4. Magnum illud & insacrificabile (ut ita dicam) sacrificium, quod in prima natura legalibus intermixtum est hostiis, non pro parva orbis part, neque pro paucis, sed toto mundo purgationem obtulit aeviternam. That great and unsacrificable sacrifice (as I may call it) which in the first age was set forth by the sacrifices of the law, he offered to be an eternal purgation not for a small part of the world, nor for a few, but for the whole world.  
His fift report out of the counterfeit Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Rome, I will not vouchsafe to answer.  
His sixth reporter is Origen. Hom. 13. in Leviticum, who writeth of the commemoration that Christ commanded in his last supper to be done, that: Ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium facit hominibus Deum. This is the only commemoration which purchaseth propititation and mercy of GOD to men. Although here be never a word of the sacrifice of the Mass, yet how shamefully he applieth only to the commemoration of the last supper that which Origen speaketh not of that only, but of the propitiation by faith in his blood, you shall easily see by Origens' whole sentence, out of which he hath gelded this patch: Sed parva satis & tenuis est huiusmodi intercessio. Quantum enim profecit ad repropitiandun, ubi uniuscuiusque tribus per panem fructus, per fructus opera consideranda sunt? Sed si referantur haec ad mysterii magnitudinem, invenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum. Si redeas ad illum panem qui de coelo descendit, & dat huic mundo vitam: illum panem propositionis, quem praeposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius: & si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus: hoc facite in meam commemorationem: invenies quòd ista est commemoratio sola, quae propitium faciat hominibus Deum. Speaking of the show bread of the Law, he sayeth: But small and little worth is such intercession. For how much hath it profited unto propitiation, where the fruit of every tribe by bread, & by their fruit their works are to be considered? But if these things be referred to the greatness of the mystery, thou shalt find this commemoration to have effect of great propitiation. If thou return to that bread which came down from heaven, and giveth life to the world: that bread of proposition, which God hath set forth to be a propitiation by faith in his blood: and if thou look unto that commemoration, of which the Lord sayeth: do this in remembrance of me, thou shalt find that this is the only commemoration which maketh God merciful to men. Thus you see that Origen taketh not the sacrament alone, but Christ and faith in his blood, whereof the sacrament is a commemoration, to be the only propitiation for our sins, figured in the show bread.  
His last man is Augustine, De civitate Dei, li. 22. Ca 8. Vir tribunitus Hesperius etc. Hesperius a worshipful man who is with us, hath in his territory of Fussala a piece of ground called Cuber. In y● which place, understanding his house to be vexed with evil spirits, to y● great affliction of his cattle and servants, required in my absence our priests, that some of them would go thither, by whose prayers they might departed. One went thither. He offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying as much as he was able, that the same vexation might cease. Incontinently through y● mercy of God 〈◊〉 ceased. Here is nothing but the name of sacrifice, which the fathers then used unproperly for the celebration of the communion. But that by merit of that sacrifice, God was pacified to cast out those devils. Augustine sayeth not, but Stapleton absurdly gathereth. For Augustine calleth the death of Christ the singular and only true sacrifice. Cont. advers. leg. & proph. lib. 1, Cap. 18. Therefore the communion was unproperly a sacrifice, but of thanks giving, as the same Augustine writeth De fide ad Pet. Cap. 19 & Cont. advers. leg. & Proph. lib. 1. Cap. 20. Wherefore his Popish brag notwithstanding, here is never an ancient father within the 600. years that acknowledgeth the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass.  
The eight difference, is intercession of saints, which Protestants abhor. There is no man denieth, but that this error prevailed within the time of the first 600. years, and namely in the later 300. years. For in the first 300. there is nothing to be found, whereby it may be gathered. Epiphanius accounteth invocation of Angels an heresy of the Caiani. Tom. 3. H. 38. And although some show of invocation of saints in the later time may be excused by rhetorical exornation, as M. grindal truly said, & some prayers for the dead, as that of Ambrose for Theodosius, whom both he calleth a perfect servant of god, & yet prayth fos his rest, which agreeth not with popish prayers for them in Purgatory: yet it is confessed that this was one of the spots of that time, which being not proved by scripture, can be nothing else but a superstition of men. What said I? can it not be proved by scripture? behold the learned clerk M. Stapl. proveth it out of S. Peter, Ep. 2. Ca 1. I think it right as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up and admonish you, being certain that I shall shortly leave this tabernacle, according as our Lord jesus Christ hath signified unto me. But I will endeavour also to have you often after my death, that you may remember these things. Here is a strange kind of translation of these words of his own Latin text. Dabo autem operam & frequenter habere vos post obitum meum, ut horum memoriam faciatis. But I will endeavour also that you may have after my departure, whereby to make remembrance of these things. For I will neither trouble him with the Greek text, which perhaps he regardeth not, nor with Erasmus translation, which are without all ambiguity. But I appeal to Grammarians, whether habere vos, in this place may be reasonably construed, to have you, or else be resolved by ut habeatis vos, that you may have. His collection is more monstrous than his construction: for thus he addeth immediately after his translation. I ask here: How will S. Petter after his death endeavour and procure, that the people may remember his sayings? They will not, I dare say, say that he will come in a vision, or by revelation unto them. What remaineth then, but that he will further them with his good prayers? And so do the ancient Greek Scholies expound this place. And I ask here: How prove you that S. Peter after his death will endeavour & procure for them? O shameless corruption. S. Peter saith, that because he hath not long to live, he will not only put them in remembrance living, but also leave his Epistle, that it may be a perpetual admonition of them, even after he is dead. But the ancient Greek Scholies (as he saith) do so expound it. Why are not those Scholies set down, and their antiquity showed to be within the compass of the first six hundredth years? In deed Occumenius which lived about five hundredth years last past, reporteth that some did wrest that text unto such a sense, but they which did simply handle the words of S. Peter, did expound it as I have done before.  
The 9 difference, is commemoration of Saints at Mass time. If you mean commemoration only, as I have showed before, we make it in our Communion, and therefore this is no difference, but a lie of Master Stapleton, for we say: Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and all the holy company of heaven, we laud and magnify etc. Likewise in the collects mention is made of the Apostles, whose memory our Church doth keep. In deed, we use no invocation of Saints, which was used within the latter 300. years, but not to be proved in the first 300 years. Neither do we think the honour of Saints to be a dishonour to God, but such honour as robbeth God of his glory, which he will not communicate with any creature. But Augustine showeth the memory of Martyrs to be kept of the Christian people, Ad excitandam imitationem, & ut merius eorum consocietur atque orationibus adi●uetur. To stir up imitation, and that they may be joined in fellowship of their merits, and helped with their prayers. The fellowship of their merits, he meaneth to be made like them in good works. For he acknowledged no desert of our good works, but only the mercy of God. It is pity that julian the Apostata had so great occasion to charge the Christians with superstition of sepulchres, whereof they had no ground in the Scriptures. Although Cyrillus defendeth no superstition, but only a reverent estimation of the tombs of the Martyrs for their virtues sake, after the example of the heathen. Again he saith, that the relics of the dead were not seen bare, and negligently cast upon the earth, but well laid up: and hidden in the bosom of their mother in the depth of the earth, wherein they differred not a little from the usage of Papists, about their relics. cyril. Contr. julian lib. 10. The pride of Eustachius in contemning the public Churches, ministering in corners, we condemn with the Council of Gangra. Concerning the reading of the passions of Martyrs in the Church, which he cavilleth that Master jewel left out in his reply to Doctor Harding, out of the seven and forty Canon of the Council of Carthage 3. Bartholmewe Garizon confesseth, that it is an addition, and without all such addition, the same that M. jewel requireth, that nothing be read in the Church, but the canonical books, as the 59 Canon of the Council of Laodicea.  
The 10. difference is of confession and penance, in which he maketh two kinds, open confession & private, for the open confession used in the primitive Church, he bringeth many proofs out of Acts 19 Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, the council of Nice. Which need not, for we grant that it was used, & we ourselves according to such discipline as our Church of England hath, do use it, that public and notorious offenders make public confession of their faults, for satisfaction of the congregation. But when this public confession was abused, he saith, that this practice of the Church and the counsel of S. james, willing Christians to confess one before an other, was restrained to the auricular confession of the priest only. But neither he showeth when, nor by what authority the counsel of that the Apostle, and practise of the Church was thus altered. He citeth an Epistle of Innocentius ad Decentium. cap. 7. to prove, That particular confession was not first instituted in the Council of Latarane, as Caluine babbleth, but that if a man were diseased, he should not tarry for the time of Easter, but Mox confiteri, be shriven out of hand, which was not done in the face of the Church, but privately in the chamber. Whereas this Mox confiteri for all his shameless and ignorant babbling, is not at all in that chapter, which is this. De poenitentibus verò, qui sive ex gravioribus commissis, save ex levioribus panitentiam gerunt. si nulla interueniat aegritudo, quinta feria ante Pascha eis remittendum, Romanae ecclesiae consuetudo demonstrat. Coetterùm de pondere aestimando delictorum, sacerdotis est judicare, ut attendat ad confessionem poenitentis, & ad fletus atque lachrymas corrigentis, ac nom jubere dimitti, cùm viderit congruam satisfactionem. Sane, si quis in aegritudinem inciderit, atque usque ad desperationem devenerit, ei est ante tempus pasche relexandum ne de saeculo absque communione discedat. Now concerning penitents, which either for greater or smaller offences do penance, if no sickness come between, the custom of the Church of Rome showeth, that they must be released the fifth day before Easter. But as for esteeming their offences, it is the priests part to judge, that he may give heed to the confession of him that repenteth, & to the tears and weeping of him that amendeth, and then to bid him be dismissed, when he shall see convenient satisfaction. But truly if any man fall into sickness, and that he be come even to desperation, he must be released before the time of Easter, that he depart not out of the world without the Communion. Here is no word of shriving, for the confession was made publicly before penance enjoined, and if in this case, of necessity there were confession in the chamber, it is not proved to be auricular, nor common to all men without the case of necessity. That which he citeth afterward out of Jerome in Eccles. cap. 10. is meant of ask counsel of an afflicted conscience. For Innocentius that was after Hieronyme, testifieth of the public confession of the Church. The rest also that he citeth out of Augustine and Cyprian is plain of open confession, and never a word of auricular confession enjoined by Papists under pain of damnation he can bring within the first 600. years. Wherefore I will help him. Sozomenus lib. 7. cap. 16. showeth, that in the Church of Constannople, a Priest was appointed, which should hear confessions of them that came to him, and enjoining penance, should absolve them, but by Nestorius this order of confession was taken away, because a certain noble woman was corrupted in the Church by a Deacon. Where also he showeth, that the custom of Rome was to do open penance, and not private. This writer testifieth of private confession used and abolished within the 600. years, but with infinite inconveniences instituted a fresh in the later Romish Council of Latrane.  
The 11. difference is of the merit of good works, which he will prove by Scripture, first out of Ecclesiasticus 16. All mercy shall make place to every man according to the merit of his works. Which is neither canonical scripture, nor rightly tanslated, for according to the truth of the Greek it is thus. He will give place to all good deeds, and every one shall find according to his works. The second text is 1. Pet 4. Charity covereth the multitude of sins. By which the Apostle meaneth (as Solomon, out of whose proverbs he citeth it) that even as hatred causeth brawling, and discovering of men's infirmities, so charity covereth and concealeth the multitude of our brother's offences. This is nothing for merit. The third place. 2. Pet. 1. When he biddeth us to labour, to make sure our vocation & election by good works. By which words the Apostle willeth us to confirm unto ourselves the certainty of our calling and election, (which is most certain to God,) by the necessary effects and fruits of our election and calling, which are good works, not the cause, but the effect and end of our election. He hath chosen us that we might be holy Ephe. 1. not because we were holy. His fourth text is, 2. Cor. 8. Let your abundance supply their lack, that their abundance may supply your lack also. Which I agree with him, and Theodoret to be the communion of Saints, but I deny that the communion of Saints is of merits, but of graces and benefits of God.  
The last text is Col. 1. S. Paul performed in his flesh such as lacked of the passions of Christ, that is, the effects and fruits thereof, which was to suffer with Christ, for his body, which is the Church, meaning that the Church and not he only should have merit thereby. This blasphemy was far from S. Paul's meaning, who saith not, that he should merit any thing which Christ had not merited, but that he as a member, should suffer that which Christ had not suffered, who suffered as the head for our eternal redemption, and Paul as a member suffered to be made conformable to the head, not to redeem the Church, but to give testimony to the Gospel of salvation, for the edifying of the Church. Wherefore I will conclude with Ambrose ad Virgin. exhor. unde mihi tantum meriti est, cui indulgentia pro coronae est? Whence should I have so great merit, when mercy is my crown? and with Augustine in Psal. 43. Quid dicturi sumus? merita nostra fecisse ut nobis illa salus perpetua mitteretur à domino? absit: si merita nostra aliquid facerent, ad damnationem nostram veniret. What shall we say? that our merits have caused that this perpetual salvation should be sent to us from the Lord? God forbidden. If our merits did any thing, it should come to our damnation.   

CAP. V.  
Of the single life in the Clergy, 
Stapleton.  of the state of virginity in Nuns, of Monks and Friars, of the vowed profession of both.  
The 12. difference is the single life of the Clergy. 
Fulke  He saith we read expressly lib. 1. cap. 27. in Bedes history, that none of the Clergy had wines that were within holy orders. How expressly we read, you shall hear the very words of his own translation. And if there be any among y● Clergy out of holy orders, which cannot live chaste, they shall take wives, and have their stipend allowed them without. Here is no express words, that none of the Clergy that were within holy orders had wives: but a particular order for Augustine, and in respect that he was a Monk, not to have his portion of the oblations severed from his Clergy, & if any of his Clergy were married, so that he was not to live in the College among unmarried men, that he should have his stipend allowed abroad. For the manner of the see Apostolic was then, (as Gregory saith) which the Papists now observe not, to give commandment to such as be made bishops, that all manner of oblations that are given, be divided into 4. portions. And the one thereof given to the Bishop toward his hospitality, the other to the Clergy, the third to the poor, the fourth to the reparation of the Churches. So that there is no rule for the Clergy of other Bishops, that were no Monks, but that they might marry, if they could not live chaste, as well within holy orders as without, & so was the practice of the Church of England, more than 400. years after, until the decree of Lanfrancus. Anno 1076., who yet was more favourable to them that had wives, than Stapleton, which would have them put away. Decretum est, ut nullus Canonicus uxorem habeat, Sacerdotum verò in Castellis vel in vicis habitantium habentes uxores, non cogantur ut dimittant: non habentes interdicantur, ut habeant. Et deinceps caveant Episcopi, ut sacerdotes vel diacones non praesumant ordinare, nisi prius profiteantur ut uxores non habeant. It is decreed, that no Canon may have a wife. But of Priests dwelling in towns and villages, such as have wives, let them not be compelled to put them away. But such as have not, let them be forbidden to have. And from henceforth let Bishops take heed, that they presume not to ordain priests or deacons, except they do first profess to have no wives.  
This decree proveth that before this time, not only married men were ordained priests, but also that priests after they were ordained did take wives. The same is proved by the words of the Epistle of Gerardus, which was afterward Archb. of York, unto Anselm Archb. of Canterbury. Cum ad ordines aliquos invito, dura ceruice renituntur, ne in ordinando castitatem profiteantur. When I call any to orders, they resist with a stiff neck, that in taking order they do not profess chastity. But now when this jolly fortifier should prove the single life of all the Clergy in the first six hundredth years, he can bring nothing but certain decrees, that such as were promoted to priesthood unmarried, should not after marry, yet he confesseth that there were many married men taken unto the order of priesthood, but seldom, he saith, in the Latin Church. Yet let us see his authorities: first Augustine lib. 2. cap. vlt. de adulter. in coniugis: saith that they were wont to bring example of the continency of clerk, to persuade men to abstain from adulterous marriages. Solemus eis proponere etiam continentiam clericorum, qui plerumque ad eandem sarcinam subcundam capiuntur inviti, eamque susceptam usque ad debitum finem Domino iuvante producunt. We are wont to set before them the continency of clerk, which are oftentimes taken against their wills to bear the same burden, & when they have taken it upon them do bring it to the due end, the Lord assisting them. Of this he gathereth, that the Clergy in Saint Augustine's days refrained from wives all the days of their life, which as it is true of some, so it is utterly false of all. Again the compulsion which he speaketh of, was not unto continency, but unto the ministery, and in the ministry not of necessity of greater estimation. As the words immediately following do declare. Dicimus ergo eyes, quid si & vos ad hoc subeundum populorum violentia caperemini: nun susceptum castè custodiretis officium, repentè conversi ad impetrandas vires a Domino de quibus nunquam anteà cogitastis? Sed illos inquiunt honor consolatur. Respondemu●, & vobis aempliùs limor moderetur. Si enim hoc multi Dei ministri repentè atque inopinatè impositum susceperunt, sperantes se illustriùs in Christi haereditate fulgere, quanto magia vos adulteria cavendo vivere debetis, metuentes non in regno Dei minus lucere, sed in Gehennae ignibus ardere. We say therefore unto them. What if you also were taken by the violence of the people to bear the same? Would you not keep chastely the office taken upon you: being suddenly turned, to obtain of the Lord such strength as before you never thought of? But the honour (say they) doth comfort them. We answer. And fear should more restrain you. For if many ministers of God have taken upon them this thing being laid upon them suddenly and unlooked for, hoping that they shall shine more notably in the inheritance of Christ: how much more ought you to live so as you beware of adultery, fearing not to shine less in the kingdom of God, but to burn in the fires of hell?  
Next he citeth a Canon ascribed to the Apostles, out of justinian confirmed in the sixth general council of Constantinople in Trullo. Ex coniugatis, etc. Of such as come to the clergy unmarried and after will marry, we permit that only to the readers and singers. Nevertheless he confesseth, that Zonoras' expoundeth this so, that if any refuse to live chaste being asked at his orders taken, he is permitted first to marry, and then admitted to the ministry. And the council of Constantinople in the same sixth Canon. Si quis autem eorum qui in Clerum accedunt, velit lege matrimonii mutieri coniungi, antequam Hypodiaconus vel Diaconus vel presbyter ordinetur, hoc faciat. But if any of them which come into the Clergy, will be joined to a woman by the law of matrimony, let him do it before he be ordained Subdeacon, Deacon or Priest. Where is now the necessity of single life in the Clergy.  
After this he citeth the council of Ancyra Can. 10. which is clean contrary to his purpose, if he had recited it whole as he only taketh the tail. The Canon is this. Diaconi quicunque cùm ordinantur, si in ipsa ordinatione protestati sunt dicentes, velle se habere uxores, nec posse se continere, high postea si ad nuptias venerint, maneant in ministerio, proptereà quod his Episcopus licentiam dederit. Quicunque sanè tacuerunt & susceperum manu● impositionem, professi continentiam, si postea ad nuptia● venerint, a ministeria cessare debebunt. Whoso ever when they are ordained Deacons, if in the very time of their ordaining, they make protestation and say, that they will have wives, & that they can not contain, if these afterward come to be married, let them remain in the ministry, because the Bishop hath given them licence. But truly whosoever hath held their peace, and received imposition of hands, professing continence, if after they marry, aught to cease from the ministry. This Canon showeth, that it was lawful for the Clergy being in holy orders to marry, if they professed not continence, to which profession none was bound, as they are in Popery.  
Again if after profession they married, they were not divorced as Papists used in Queen Mary's time, but commanded to abstain from the ministery.  
The last authority he citeth is out of the Synod of Neocaesaria presbyter, etc. A priest if he marry a wife ought to be deposed from his order. It followeth in the same Canon. But if he commit fornication or adultery, he must be moreover cast out of the Church, and driven to do penance among lay men. This was a decree of 17. Bishops in the province of Paulus Polemoniaca, and is to be understood of such a priest as professed continency. Whose marriage yet was not made void, but he put out of his office, whereas he that had committed fornication, was put both out of the ministery, and of the Church, which seeing the Papists observe not in their lecherous priests, they have small right to use this Canon, which yet bindeth none but that province that made it.  
Now where he saith, it was a rare thing for the Clergy of the Latin Church to be married, Jerome no friend to marriage, shall testify the contrary, who speaketh of it as of an ordinary matter. Eliguntur mariti in sacerdotium, non nego, quia non sunt tanti virgines quanti necessarii sunt Sacerdotes. Married men are chosen unto the Priesthood, I deny not, because there are not so many virgins, as it is necessary there should be priests. And Oceano he confesseth that by the doctrine of the Apostles, priests might have wives, complaining that in his time all other qualities of a minister described by the Apostle were neglected, only the liberty of marriage looked unto. Qui dixit unius uxoris virum, etc. He that said the husband of one wife, even he commanded that he should be unreprovable, sober, wise, comely, harborous, a teacher, modest, not given to wine, no fighter, no quarreler, not covetous, no young novice in the faith. Ad haec omnia claudimus oculos, solas videmus uxores. At all these things we shut our eyes, we see nothing but their wives.  
Likewise in Aggeum Cap. 1. He inveigheth against the rulers of the Church, which building their carnal house, providing for their children & possessions, neglected the building of the temple of God. Again in Epi. ad Eph. li. 3. Ca 6. He inveigheth against Bishops and priests of his time, that broughtup their children in secular and profane learning, peradventure at the charges of the Church. Yea divers Popes have been married men, for Pope Silverius was son of Pope Hormisda, as the very pontifical witnesseth: and Beda showeth lib. 2. cap. 1. that Pope Felix was great grandfather to Pope Gregory.  
I will spend no more time in so clear a matter. Wherefore the single life required of necessity in the Clergy, is not proved within the 600. years so often named.  
The thirteenth difference is, of the state of virginity in men and women. Such state protestants acknowledge not, but rather abhor it, and persecute it. It is a mere slander, for we honour virginity that is not counterfeit, in them that had made themselves chaste for the kingdom of heaven. But when Master Stapleton will make virginity impossible to no man, he is directly contrary to our Saviour Christ. Non omnes etc. all men can not receive this saying, but they to whom it is given; Mat. 19 and to Saint Paul. 1. Cor. 7. Qui non conunet, he that can not contain, let him marry. I confess also, that within the six hundredth years, there were some Colleges of virgins, which differed as much from Popish Nuns, as many Popish Nuns from honest women. They lived not idly, as Popish Nuns, of their lands and revenues, but with spinning, and making of cloth, they maintained themselves, August. De moribus Eccl. Catholi●ae Cap. 31. They lived continently, or else they married. Popish Nuns though they live never so incontinently, yet will they never marry. Epiph. lib. 2. Tom. 1. Her. 61. Popish Nuns are for the most part, like those Monks and Nuns of the heretics, Originiani Turpes. Non student Castitati, sed simulatae castitati, & nomen sal●em habenti. They study not for chastity, but such as is feigned chastity, and hath only a name of chastity Volentes esse in honore propter putatam apud ipsos castitatis exercitationem. Willing to be in honour, for the supposed exercise of chastity among them, when there is nothing less than chastity.  
Concerning the rule of Augustine Ep. 109. prescribed to the virgins that tumultuously and seditiously would have changed their governess, if we do admit it to be written by Saint Augustine, yet it is not sufficient to authorize the superstitious orders of Popish Nuns. Among whom their habit is not the least part of their superstition, which Augustine in his virgins forbiddeth to be notable or differing from other women. Non sit notabilis habitus vester, nec affectetis vestibus placere, sed moribus. Let not your apparel be such as may be noted or marked, neither desire ye to please with garments, but with manners. The like writeth Jerome concerning the apparel of virgins of his time. Again Saint Augustine's virgins were not bound to their Cloister, but might depart, if they liked not the severity of their rule, or else were expulsed from thence. Conuicta secundum praeposuae vel praesbyteri arbitrium debet emandatoriam sustinere vindictam, quam si fortè recusaverit, & siipsa non abscesserit, de vestra societate proijciatur. She that is convicted (but of wanton looks) according to the decree of the Governess or priest, aught to sustain a punishment for her amendment, which if she refuse to bear, and if she herself depart not away, let her be cast clean out of your society. If this rule were observed, few Popish Nuns should be left in their Cloisters. Moreover, Saint Augustine's virgins were commanded to understand what they did pray or sing, not one among forty of Popish Nuns understand their Popish service which they sing. Psalmis & Hymnis cùm oratis Deum, hoc versetur in cord, quod profertur in voce. When you pray to God with Psalms and Hymns, let that be in your heart which is pronounced in your voice. These and many other differences may be observed which are sufficient to confute Stapleton, which would make his Popish Nuns all one with the virgins of the ancient & purer Church. But Eusebius out of Philo showeth the even in the Apostles time there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oratories and Monasteries of men & women lib. 2. cap. 16. It is true the Eusebius so judgeth: but who so readeth Philo his own writing shall plainly see that he speaketh rather of a sect of jews at Alexandria given to contemplation, & not of Christians. Beside this the monasteries which he speaketh of were not Abbeys, wherein they lived, but only solitary places of study for a time. For in them they had neither meat nor drink, as Philo expressly affirmeth. To conclude, seeing that in the scripture we have no commandment for virgins, we commend them that have the gift, & exhort them so to continue. But seeing the gift is rare in our days, and the examples of them that have professed virginity, and lived abominably, are too many, we think it neither needful nor expedient, to set up Colleges of virgins, nor to exact any vow of them, but to leave them to their conscience and liberty, which the holy Ghost hath given them.  
The fourteenth difference is of Monks and religious men, as though none were religious, but Monks. I confess they had within the six hundredth years, men that lived a solitary life, called Monachi, Anachoreti, Fremitae etc. but no more like our Popish boars, living in their franks, than angels are like to devils. Their differences I have showed even out of Bede in the table of differences. But Stapleton saith, that the faults of a few ought not to have caused subversion of the whole orders. I answer, they were so few that offended, that they were almost all nought. And what be the Monks of Flaunders where he dwelleth at this day? be they much reform? Is not idleness, drunkenness, brawling their greatest exercise, when they be free from idolatry and superstition? How many learned men be in those Cloisters that are diligent preachers, even in the Popish Church? What their chastity is God knoweth. But the Country speaketh evil of them. In his title of the Chapter, he speaketh of Friars, whereof I had great marvel to see his impudence, that would promise to prove them to have been within the first six hundredth years, that sprung not up more than twelve hundredth years after Christ. But in this section of the Chapter there is no word of them. Neither could the Popish Monks themselves abide them, ever since their arising.  
The fifteenth difference is vows of virginity, both in men and women, and here he bringeth in Friars in the devils name, to be as ancient as S. Augustine, Whose words he thus translateth in 1. Tom. 5. Nemo ergo positus in Monasterio frater, dicat, recedo de Monasterio. Therefore let no Friar placed in a Monastery, say, I will depart out of the Monastery etc. This testimony of Saint Augustine (he saith) may suffice to show that in the Church of the first six hundredth years both Friars & Nuns vowed virginity etc. Surely my lungs will not serve me to cry loud enough against the impudency of this shameless creature, that to abuse the ignorant, translateth Frater, in S. Augustine, by the Popish French-English name of Friar, to make them believe, that the Augustine friars were instituted by Saint Augustine, which are not yet two hundredth year old. For about the year of our Lord one thousand four hundredth and six, this order of Friars under the name of Saint Augustine, was first erected by one Redus Comes montis granelli, and one Gualterus Marsus his coadjutor at Fesula a City of Hetruria, confirmed by Gregory 12. one of the two Popes, that then ruled the roast both togeher, the one in Italy the other in France. Cronic. Cronicorum. Herm. Sched.  
Now touching the vow of virginity made in those ancient times, that it was not free to return to the world as both Erasmus and Polidore affirm, whom he chargeth very fond and ignorantly so to write. How far it did bind, you shall hear, first out of Epiphanius, and then out of Jerome. Epiphanius contra Apost. Haer. 61. lib. 2. To. 1. thus writeth.  
Melius est iraque unum peccatum habere & non plura. Melius est lapsum a cursu palam sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem, & a virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere. & sic rursus ad Ecclesiam induci, v●lut qui mala operatus est, velut lapsum & fractum & obligatione opus habentem: & non quotidie occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitate quae a diabolo ipsi infertur. Sic noui● Ecclesia praedicare. Haec sunt sanationis medicamenta. Therefore it is better to have one sin and not many. It is better for him which is fallen from his course, openly to take him a wife, according to the law, and to repent long time from his virginity, and so to be brought again unto the Church, as one that hath wrought evil, as one that is fallen and broken, and having need of binding up, and not to be daily wounded with secret darts, which of the devil are cast against him. So knoweth the Church to preach, those be the medicines of healing.  
Saint Jerome ad Demetriadem writeth thus. Sanctum virginum propositum & Coelestis angelorumque familiae gloriam, quarundam non bene se agentium nomen infamat. Quibus apart dicendum est, ut aut nubant si se non possunt continere, aut contineant si nolunt nubere. The report of some that behave not themselves well, slandereth the holy purpose of virgins, and the glory of the heavenly and Angelical family. To whom it must be said openly, that either they should marry, if they can not contain, or else they should contain, if they will not marry. Wherefore by these two doctors judgement, our doctrine differeth not from the doctrine of the primitive Church, within the six hundredth years after Christ.   

CAP. VI  
Of prayer for the dead, 
Stapleton.  Of solemnity in Christian burials, Of houseling before death, Of reservation of the sacrament. Of the sign of the cross, Of Benediction of Bishops.  
The sixteenth difference is prayer for the dead, 
Fulke.  with dirige, and Mass in the morning, the fortification thereof he leaveth, because it is done sufficiently by another, he meaneth Master Allen of purgatory, and for the assault and battery of that piece, I also refer the reader to my overthrow of the same defence.  
The seventeenth difference is solemnity of Christian burial, which is used and allowed of us so far as it is without superstition He allegeth that Paulious did write to Saint Augustine, from the sea coasts of Italy to the sea costs of Africa, to be fully instructed, whether the holiness of the place any thing availed the burial of the body, etc. But why did not he send nearer home, to the Apostolic see of Rome, the Pope whereof (or else you lie) can not err? For Augustine was not able to resolve him, who although he suppose this benefit there may be, that the friends of the body buried near a martyrs tomb, may be occasioned thereby in remembering the place of his burial, to commend his soul to that Martyr, yet he can not tell how the Saints departed should know the requests of them that live. Cap. 16. lib. De cura pro mortuis: and except this occasion of praying for their souls, he knoweth not what the holiness of the place can help them, wherein he differeth from Papists, 
Cap. 2.  that think it a great matter of itself, to be buried in a holy place, which of them for that purpose is exorcized and hallowed.  
The 18. difference is: Houseling before death, which the sacramentaries make to be of no necessity, because they bind the sinner to a number of other communicantes. If it be a matter of necessity, how is it with all infants, how with many that die suddenly, etc. are all such damned? But he sayeth, the practice of the primitive Church proveth it to be necessary, as in the example of Serapion Euseb. lib, 6. cap. 44. and of Satyrus Saint Ambroses' brother In obitum Satyri, etc. And is it even so? Doth the example of one man that was excommunicated, and could not be quiet until he had received the communion, and of an other that never received it, nor was baptized, prove it necessary for all men? Yea (saith Stapleton) who will read only but one Canon of the Nicene council, shall find therein not only a general commandment for all Christendom, but also the ancient practice of the Church before that time. And I say who so will read not only the whole Canon, but the very title thereof, shall find, that it was a remission only for excommunicated persons. Canon. 12. De excommunicatis a saeculo ex●untibus. Of excommunicated people departing this world, De his verò qui recedunt ex corpore antiquae legis reguia obseruabitur eti● nunc, ita ut si fortè quis recedat ex corpore, necessario vitae suae viatico non defraudetur. Quod si desperatus aliquis recepta Communione superuixerit, si● inter eos qui sola oratione communicant. De omnibus tamen his qui a corpore recedunt in tradendo eye Communionem, & cura & probatio sit episcopi. But concerning them which depart out of this body, the rule of the ancient law shallbe observed even now also, so that if perhaps any depart out of the body, he may not be defrauded of the necessary provision of his life. But if any being at the point of death after he have received the Communion, do recover & live, let him be among them that communicate in prayer only. Nevertheless, concerning all those men that depart out of the body, in delivering to them the communion, let both the charge and the trial be in the bishop's discretion.  
This Canon was not made for all Christian men, that at times of public administration of the sacraments might freely be partakers, but only of such as were excommunicated & appointed a time of penance for their trial, before they should be admitted to the lords supper: before which time, if they were at the point of death, and the bishop allowed of their repentance, this Canon provideth, that they might be received to the Communion, for their comfort: but yet so; that if any did recover and live, they should accomplish their time among the penitentes that was before enjoined them. This thing being so apparent, what shall we say of these English Lovanistes, that either they never read the books out of which they cite their authorities, or else without all shame they wrest them against their own conscience?  
The 19 difference, is the reservation of the sacrament, wherein, as I confess in some erroneous kind of reservation we differ from some of the primitive Church, so they differed from Christ, which commanded it to be eaten and drunken. And it is manifest, that their reservation differed from the popish reservation, both in the manner and in the end. But concerning reservation, I refer the reader to mine answer to D. heskin's first book Cap. 24. 25. 26. & 27. where you shall find all his authorities discussed, except the 14. Canon of the Council of Nice, out of which he allegeth, that the Deacons might, absent Episcopo & presbitero proferre communionem & comedere. In the absence of the Bishop and priest, take out the communion and receive it. Whereby he sayeth, it is evident, that it was reserved in the Churches, where the Deacons might come to receive it. But I must admonish the reader, that these words which he citeth are an addition of Gratian and the popish church, and are not in the true copies in Greek of that Council, nor in the right Latin translation, as even Peter Crabb the Papist confesseth, nor yet in the edition of Ruffinus. But such draff and dregs of falsifications, additions, detractions, mutations, etc. are good enough for popish swine.  
The 20. difference is blessing with the sign of the Cross: for fortification of which piece, he referreth the reader to Marshal's treatise of the Crosse. And I to M. calfhil's Answer, and my Rejoinder.  
The 21. difference is benediction of the bishop, which he sayeth is mocked at and reviled by Protestants. But he sayeth untruly: for although we may justly deride the vain ceremonial casting of crosses in the air of their bitesheepes rather than bishops, with their two fingers, which is nothing else but a ridiculous superstition, yet we contemn not the godly benediction of a Christian Bishop and pastor, which useth the same according to the word of God. Therefore the examples of Nectarius which desired the benediction of his Bishop Diodorus at his departure, and Aurelius which blessed Augustine and his company, after he had visited them, show no difference of them from us. And if Eudo●ia the Empress desired Chrisostome to bless her son Theodosius his godson. What did Chrysostom but pray for him, and with him well in the name of the Lord? And how did Diodorus bless Nectarius? And Aurelius bless Augustine and the rest, but by godly prayer made to God for them? not with vain, dumb & idle ceremonies after the Popish manner. So that the manner of blessing of the ancient times, doth rather prove a difference of Papists from them, then of us from them. And moreover you may consider, how to make up a number of differences, what small matters he is fain to fly unto, and even such as he hath no show of hold at all in the writers of the ancient Church of 600. years after Christ, for them. But only to set a face of the matter, as though there were nothing new amongst them, when not only their ceremonies, but also many of the principal articles of their doctrine, wherein they differ from us, were either not heard of in those ages, or else were openly impugned by writers of those times. Only the dregs and refuse of the former age they retain, as prayer for the dead, invocation of saints, and a few other such matters.   

CAP. VII.  
Of pilgrimage and relics, 
Stapleton.  of Church service, of Altars, of Church ornaments & holy vessels, of the ecclesiastical ●onsure, and of holy water.  
The 22. difference is pilgrimage to holy places, 
Fulke.  especially to Rome. In deed we find that peregrination to jerusalem was esteemed of many, and great resort to Rome, of the wiser sort not for the holiness of the places, but for the frequency of godly & learned men then living in those places. Otherwise for the holiness of the place, S. Hierom ad Paulinum, whether M. Sapleton sendeth us, doth sufficiently declare what was to be esteemed of it. Non Hierosolymis fuisse, sed Hierosolymis bene vixisse laudandum est. It is no praise to have been at Jerusalem, but to have lived well at Jerusalem. And speaking even of our own country, he addeth. Et de Hierosolymis & de Britannia aequaliter patet aula coelestis. The court of heaven is open equally, from jerusalem and from Britain. Again: Beatus Hilarion cùm Palestinus esset & in Palestina viveret, uno tantùm die vidit Hierosolimam, ut nec contemnere loca sancta propter vicinitatem, nec rursus dominum loco claudere videretur. Blessed Hilarion when he was a Palestine borne, and lived in Palestine, saw jerusalem but one day only, that neither he might seem to contemn the holy places because of nearness, nor again to shut up the Lord in a place. And because Master Stapleton maketh pilgrimage a matter of faith, he saith further: After he hath showed how many excellent men never came at jerusalem, etc. Quorsum inquies haec tam longo repetita principio? Videlicet ne quicquam fidei tuae deesse putes, quia Hierosolymam non vidisti. Thou wilt say, to what end are these things fetched from so long a beginning? verily, that thou shouldest not think any thing to be wanting to thy faith, because thou hast not seen jerusalem. Thus Jerome, albeit it was much used, yet judged peregrination unto jerusalem, to be a matter of small importance.  
By Chrysostom sayeth, Hom. 5. de beato job: that if strength of body did serve, & that he were not letted with the charge of his Church, he would have traveled to Rome, to see the chains wherewith Saint Paul was bound. And this Stapleton will warrant, to have been done without superstition. I would feign know how he will discharge this saying of his in the same homely, either of superstition, or of an excessive commendation. Si quis me coelo condonet omni, vel ea qua pauli manus vinciebatur catena, illam ego honore praeponerem. If any man could give me all heaven, or else that chain, wherewith Saint Paul's hand was bound, I would prefer that chain in honour. Excuse this if you can, so it be not with a rhetorical exornation, for the you cannot abide. Nevertheless, the same Chrisostom showeth, that it was not needful for obtaining remission of fins, to take in hand any pilgrimage. In Epist. ad Phil. Hom. Non opus est in longinqua peregrinando transire, nec ad remotissimas ire nationes, non pericula, non labores tolerare, sed velle tantummodo. There is no need to go a pilgrimage into far countries, nor to go to the furthest nations, nor to suffer perils nor travels, but only to be willing. Now let the wisdom of the Papists take heed, as he admonisheth the wisdom of the Protestants, that they charge not Chrysostom with the heresy of sola fides, or licentious liberty, more than we check him for superstition. The like of remission of sins, without pilgrimage, he sayeth: Hom. de. Anima & educatione Samuelis, which is as contrary to the draff of popish pilgrimage, as the peregrination used in this day is out of use with us. For Papists were wont to make pilgrimage a meritorious work, and many had it in penance persuaded by their ghostly father, they could not otherwise have remission of their sins, except perhaps by a Pope's pardon, with a commutation of penance. Concerning the place of Augustine, which he citeth Ep. 137. It proveth no ordinary pilgrimage then in use, but only showeth Augustine's devise in a case of such doubt, as he could not find out the truth between one that was accused and his accuser, that it was not amiss they should both travel to some such place, where miracles are said to be wrought, if happily there in such place, the truth might be revealed by miracle.  
And yet I confess not urged by any thing Stapleton saith, that Augustine else where speaketh of peregrination to Rome in Psal. 85. Quales isti principes venerunt de babylon? Principes credentes de saeculo, principes venerunt ad urbem Roman, quasi caput Babylonis, non ierunt ad templum imperatoris, sed ad memoriam piscatoris. What are these princes that came from Babylon? Princes of the world that believe, the princes came to Rome, as to the head of Babylon, they went not to the temple of the Emperor, but to the memory of a Fisher.  
To conclude, as there was used Peregrination to jerusalem, and other places to the memories of Martyrs, so was there never any pilgrimage to images, which is the greatest pilgrimage of Papists, within the 600. years mentioned, wherein Papists differ as much from their practice, as we, and more also.  
The 23. difference is the reverence of relics, used within the 600. years, as witnesseth Basil, Chrysostom and other. The relics or bodies of the Saints we reverence, so far as we have any warrant out of the holy Scriptures. Neither did those ancient fathers, (although immoderate in that kind of reverence) yet make idols of them, nor set them bare to be seen or handled, and worshipped, but laid up in the earth, as I have before showed out of Cyrillus: Lib. 10. Contra julianum. But what inconvenience grew by that excessive esteeming of the dead bodies of the Saints, Sozomenus showeth Li. 7. ca 10. Pauli Constantinopolitaniss Episcopi corpus in Ecclesia repositum est, id quod & multos veritatis ignaros, praesertim mulieres, ac plures è plebe, in eam opinionem induxit, ut Apostolum Paulum ibi conditum esse putent. The body of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, was buried in the Church, which thing brought many ignorant of the truth, especially women, and many of the common people into this opinion, that they think the Apostle Paul to be buried there. But whereas in the end he would have us restore so many holy relics of Abbeys and Churches, as have been spoiled and profaned, it is needless, seeing the Papists can make as many when they list. Even by the same cunning that they make some of the Apostles to have two or three bodies a piece, beside heads, arms, ribs, and other parts in infinite places, whereof he that will hear more, let him read Calvin's book of relics, and credit him but as a reporter of that, which all the world is able to reprove him of, if he would wilfully feign any thing.  
The 24. difference is Altars, for proof whereof he bringeth Chrysostom, and Augustine, which speak of Altars, whom also he confesseth to call the same tables, but that neither in matter nor form, they were like Popish Altars, but tables in deed made of boards, and removable, and standing in the midst of the Church, I have showed sufficiently in mine answer to Doctor Heskins, lib. 3. cap. 31. by which it is proved, that the Papists and not we, differ from the primitive Church in this point.  
The 25. difference is Latin service, which he would prove out of Bede by the books that Gregory sent to Augustine, which could be none other but Latin. But how prove you that those books were service books? or that if they were service books, they were not translated into the vulgar tongue? As for the fortification of this piece, by the elder times he referreth us to Doctor Harding'S proof against Master jewels challenge. And to the same Bishop's learned reply, do I refer the reader for overthrow of the same feeble fortress of Harding.  
The 26. difference is of Altar clothes, Church vestments, etc. Such Altar clothes and such vestments as Christ used in the celebration of the holy sacrament, we think not only to be sufficient, but also most convenient, for the administration of the same. Nevertheless, if any other vestments, without superstition, be appointed by lawful authority, we think no strife or contention is to be raised for so small matters.  
But let us see, of what antiquity he will make the holy vestments. First Tertullian Lib. de Monogam, maketh mention of Infulas, the upper garment of the Priest. But he might understand Tertullian (if he were disposed) to use that term but in derision of them, that when they would be proud against the Clergy, they alleged, that we are all Priests, etc. but when we are called (said he) to the same severity of discipline with the Clergy, deponimus infulas & pares sumus, we put off our Rochets, and we be private men. This infula was the apparel of the Heathen Priests, to which he alludeth, when he scoffeth at them, that in dignity would be Priests, but in discipline Lay men. The Albe which is spoken of Con. Carthag. 4. Can. 41. was nothing like your Popish Albe, but a white garment, which was used in sign of dignity, and was forbidden of the Deacons to be worn, but only in time of the oblation and reading Saint john's Petalum, if he could tell what to make of it, he would not call it generally a pontifical vestment. Saint john was a poor Pontifex, to go in pontificalibus. The rich garment which Constantine gave to the Church of jerusalem, if it had been a cope, (as he saith) it had been an unhandsome garment to dance in, as the story saith, it came into the hands of one that danced in it. The admonition that he giveth to such as sleep in Church goods, meaning belike, such as have their beds garnished with old copes, were more meet to be made to some of his benefactors, that sleep in Abbeys, and yet will not awake out of them.  
To conclude, although there is some mention of garments, applied specially for the use of divine service, yet the Popish tragical trumpery of this time, differeth as much from them in form and use, as they do in time and age.  
The 27. difference is of holy vessels: such vessels as are comely and decent for the ministration of the sacraments, we have without superstition, which beginning to grow in the ancient times, the Fathers did rather reprove then foster. Gregory Nazianzen, whom he citeth in his Oration advers. Arrianos, & de se ipso, speaking of the ministering vessels that might not be touched of many, meaneth Allegorically of profaning the mysteries of Christian religion, alluding to the profanation of the vessels of the jewish temple by Nabuzardan and Balthasar, as his words do plainly show. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. What ministering vessels not be touched of many, have I delivered to the hands of the wicked, either to Nabuzardan, or to Balthasar, which rioted wickedly in holy things, and suffered punishment worthy of his madness.  
Chrysostom reproved the preposterous superstition of the people, which durst not touch the holy vessels, but yet feared not to defile themselves with sin, In ep. ad Eph. H. 14. Non vides, etc. Dost thou not see, those holy vessels? Be they not always used to one purpose? Dare any man use them to any other purpose? Now art thou thyself more holy than these vessels, and that by much. Why then dost thou pollute and defile thyself? He hath forgotten Exuperius Bishop of Tholosse, which carried the lords body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass, when he maketh so much ado about holy vessels. Hier. ad Rusticum, Acacius Bishop of Amida is commended for melting the vessels of the Church of gold and silver, to redeem prisoners from the Persians.  
The 28. difference, is the shaven crown● of Priests, for antiquity whereof, he citeth Eusebius in Panegyric. Vos amici Dei sacerdotes longae talari vest & corona insignes. Ye friends of God, ye Priests seemly by your long side garment and crown. Verily he is worthy to be shorn on his poll, with a number of crowns, that understandeth this of a shaven crown. If nothing else could have driven him from this dream, at least he should have remembered the solemn disputation whereof he spoke immediately before in Beda, li. 5. ca 22. by which it appeareth, that the Greeks were shorn square, and not round, and therefore Eusebius speaking to Greek Priests, would never have called their square tonsure a crown. But the words of Eusebius put all out of doubt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. O ye friends and Priests of God, which are clothed with the holy long garment, and the heavenly crown of glory, and with the divine unction and the priestly rob of the holy Ghost, etc. Is there any block so senseless, to think that he called a shaven head the heavenly crown of glory? Who seethe not, that in commendation of the spiritual dignity of the Ministers of the Church, he alludeth to the aaronical attire of the Priests of the law?  
The next testimony is out of the tripartite history, that julian the Apostata to counterfeit religion, shore himself to the hard ears, therefore religious men were then shorn There is no doubt, but the Clergy, and such as professed sobriety and modesty, used to poll their heads, whereas the licentious multitude delighted in long hairs, which shearing or polling after grew to a ceremony, & from a ceremony to a superstition: but small mention of the ceremony there is, within the 600. years, and that toward the latter end of them. But where he compareth the scoffing that the Turk might make at the blessed passion of Christ, with such pleasant railing as Protestants use against their friars cowls, and shaven crowns, he showeth in what blasphemous estimation he hath such vile dung of men's invention, to compare it with the only price of our salvation.  
The 29. difference is holy water, for antiquity whereof he allegeth two miracles, the one out of Bede, li. 1. cap. 17. of Germanus, which with casting a few sprinkles of water into the sea, in the name of the Trinity, assuaged a tempest. The other of Marcellus Bishop of Apamea, which when the temple of jupiter could not be burned with fire, after prayers made, commanded water signed with the cross, to be sprinkled on the Altar, which done, the devils departed, and the temple was set on fire, & burned. But these miracles wrought by water, prove not an ordinary use of holy water in the Church, in those times, as for the counterfeit decree of Alexander the fift Bishop of Rome, is a worthy witness of such a worshipful ceremony. In the end of this chapter, he inveigheth against a new trick, which he saith, the preachers have to make their audience cry, Amen. Comparing it with the applause and clapping of hands, used in the old time, but misliked of godly fathers, Chrysostom and Jerome. So that for the preacher to pray to God, an● to give God thanks, whereto the people answereth ●●en, it is counted of Stapleton a new trick, and yet it is an ancient, as S. Paul 1. Cor. 14. vers. 16. But to make such a loud lie, that Satan himself the father of lies (I suppose) for his credits sake would be ashamed to make, in his own person. Videlicet, that To tears, to lamenting or to bewailing of their sins, no Protestant yet moveth his audience. It is an old tricks of a cankared stomached Papist.   

CAP. VIII.  
Differences between the former faith of Catholics, 
Stapleton.  and the late news of Protestants, concerning the government and rulers of the Church.  
The 30. difference is Synods of the Clergy, 
Fulke.  which is a lewd and impudent slander, for we allow them, and use them, as all the world knoweth: but (saith he) no conclusion is made in them, but such as pleaseth the parliament. This is a false lie, for although no constitution made in the convocation, hath the force of a law, except it be confirmed by parliament, yet many constitutions and Canons have been made, that were never confirmed by parliament.  
The 31. difference is imposition of hands, which is a mere slander, for that ceremony is used of us in ordaining of Ministers, likewise where he saith, that when all the Popish Bishops were deposed, there was none to lay hands on the Bishops that should be newly consecrated, it is utterly false. For there was one of the Popish Bishops that continued in his place, there were also divers that were consecrated Bishops in King Edward's time, and although there had been but one in that time of reformation, it had been sufficient by his own Gregory's resolution, Bed. lib. 1. cap. 27. another example is Lib. 3. cap. 28. of Ceadda Archbishop of York, consecrated by Wini Bishop of the West Saxons assisted by two Bryton Bishops, that were not subject to the see of Rome: Because at that time, there was never a Bishop of the Romish faction in England but this Wini, who was also a Simoniake, and bought the Bishopric of London for money. I speak not this, as though in planting of the Church, where it hath been long time exiled, an extraordinary form of ordaining were not sufficient, but to show that the Papists do pick quarrels, contrary to their own pretended records of antiquity, and Catholic religion.  
Where he inveigheth against the unsufficiency of a number of our Ministers, which are come out of the shop into the Clergy, without gifts sufficient for that calling, as I can not excuse them, nor their ordeiners, so I dare be bold to affirm, they are no worse either in knowledge or conversation, than the huge rabble of hedge Priests of Popery.  
The 32. difference, that such Bishops as were created by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, were created by the appointment of the Pope. This is a shameless lie, for which he can bring no colour, either out of the first six hundredth years, or out of Bedes history. Where he saith, If it can be showed by any history, that at any time by the mere temporal authority ever any Catholic Bishops were created, he d●re yield and grant that ours are lawful Bishops. For answer, that Catholic Bishops of old by as mere temporal authority were created, as any are created among us, I refer him to Bede lib. 3. cap. 7. & 29. lib. 4. cap. 23. of Agilbert and Wini by authority of Sonwalch, Wighard nominated by authority of Oswine and Egbert, Ostfor consecrated at the commandment of king Edilred, beside Wini made Bishop of London for money by Wulfher king of Mercia, which authority he could not have abused, except it had been in him lawfully to use.  
The 33. difference is, that Princes had not the supreme government in ecclesiastical causes. For proof whereof, he allegeth Gregory Nazianzen, and Saint Ambrose, both which speak not of chief authority, but of knowledge of spiritual matters, which is not to be sought ordinarily in Princes, but in the Clergy. Secondly, he citeth Caluine and Illyricus, which do write against such civil Magistrates, as think by their supremacy, they have absolute authority to decree what they will in the Church, whereas we in England never attribute so much to the Prince's authority, but that we always acknowledge it to be subject to God and his word. The Papists right well understand this distinction, but it pleaseth them to use this ambiguity of supreme authority, to abuse the ignorance of the simple.  
The 34. difference is, that the Bishops and godly men in matters of doubt counseled with the Pope of Rome, so did the Pope of Rome with them, while there was any modesty in him, so did Pope Sergius ask counsel of poor Beda. Math. West. Nay, but Saint Jerome so well learned, consulted with Pope Damasus, which entered his See with the slaughter of sixty persons. I might answer, that Damasus also asked counsel of Saint Jerome. So that in him which is consulted, there is rather opinion of knowledge, then of authority. But Jerome confesseth, that he will not separate himself from the Church of Rome, etc. Ep. ad. Dam. 2. So long as the Church of Rome was the Church of Christ, there was great cause he should join with it. But now is it ceased to be the spouse of Christ, and is become an adulteress, as the prophet saith of jerusalem, yea it is become Babylon, the mother of all abominations, and therefore that heavenly voice commandeth all Christians to departed out of her. But concerning the Pope's authority, I have answered at large to D. Sanders rock of the Popish Church.  
The 35. difference, but I know not how it differeth, is the Pope's authority abolished, by whom Christianity was first in this land received. It is well known, that there was Christianity before Gregory sent Augustine, not of Popelike authority, but of godly zeal as it seemeth to win the English nation to Christ. After followeth a large complaint, for abolishing the Pope's authority, a Canon invective against dissensions among us, and slight fortification of the Pope's authority, for unities sake, out of Jerome Cont. jovinian. & Cyprian de simple. prael. answered at large in the discovery of D. Sanders Rock.  
The 36. difference, Augustine came first in presence of the king, with a cross of silver, and an image of Christ painted in a table. The Protestants began with taking away the cross, and altering the Litany. But this part is left unfortified, except it be with a marginal note, that Chrysostom used in Litanies, crosses of silver, and burning tapers. In deed I read Chrysostom had certain candlesticks or cressets of silver, made in form of a cross, to carry lights upon them, in the night season, but not of any tapers burning by day, & carried before the crucifix after the Popish manner. Socr li. 6. ca 8. but hereof ye may see more in mine answer to Marshal's reply. Articl. 7.  
The 37. difference Augustine and his company to the number of forty were Monks. The first preachers of this no faith were runagate Monks and Apostate Friars. Their learning, godliness, and just cause of departing out of those Cloisters of unclean birds, is sufficiently testified to the world.  
The 38. difference, the preachers which were traded up by them, were of a virtuous, lowly, simple, poor, and meek conversation. Then were they very unlike your Popish prelate's. But Luther complaineth, that his scholars were more wicked, then under the pope. If some were so, it followeth not that all are so. Again, Beza sold his benefice to two men, if he had no confessed it himself, Stapleton might never have known of it. Afterward he raised rebellion for a sign of his vocation, and persuaded Poltrot to murder the Duke of Guise, or else Stapleton belieth him. What Mallot and Pieroreli were I know not, I doubt not, but they were honester than many Popes have been. Knokes was a Galley slave three years. The more wicked those Papists which betrayed him into the Galley. The master whereof was glad to be rid of him, because he never had good success, so long as he kept that holy man in slavery, whom also in danger of tempest, though an errant Papist, he would desire to commend him and his Galley to God in his prayers. The ejection of the Nobles from Zuicherland, is as truly imputed to the zwinglians by your author Staphylus, as all the rest of his slanders and monstrous lies are to be credited, which was done by the Papists in that country, almost two hundredth years before Zuinglius was borne. Christerne King of Denmark, was expelled his realm for his tyranny, by all the states, before they received the Gospel. How dutiful the doing of the Protestants in France hath been, let the kings own acts of Pacification testify, which always dischargeth them of rebellion, and acknowledgeth all that they have done, to have been done in his service.  
The 39 difference, voluntary poverty in Augustine not found in the first planters of this new trim-tram. A matter worthy to be answered with a whim-wham. It were easy to show how many have forsaken great dignities and livings among the Papists, to become poor preachers of the Gospel.   

CAP. X.  
Differences concerning the consequences and effects of the first faith planted among us, 
Stapleton.  and of the pretenced faith of Protestants.  
The 40. difference, they that were converted, 
Fulke.  builded Churches and Monasteries, Protestants pull down Monasteries, Churches, Chapels, Hospitals, and Alms houses, In the table of differences, I have showed, how much those Monasteries then builded, differed from Popish Abbeys: & where he chargeth Protestants with pulling down all Monasteries, he forgetteth that Cardinal Wolsee by the Pope's authority pulled down the first in our time that were suppressed, and that the Popish Clergy consented to the act of suppression, which were the devil rather than Protestant's. For Hospitals and Alms houses, it is a slander, except some private person of covetousness hath overthrown any. As for Churches and Chapels builded by us, so many as are necessary, it is apparent to the world. Alms houses and Hospitals by us are erected, such as are none in Popery. The Universities also are augmented, both in buildings and revenues, since the pulling down of Abbeys.  
The 41. difference, in Monasteries, God God was served day and might with external prayer at midnight. Although rising at midnight ordinarily be an inconvenient hour in many respects, and therefore we have no ordinary prayer at that time, yet have we early in the morning before it be day, in many places, exercise of prayer and preaching, neither was it at midnight that the nuns of Berking sung their Lawdes & Hymns. lib. 4. cap. 7. for it was after Matutines, which could not be but in the morning, although early, & before day.  
The 42. the devotion of those christians brought in voluntary oblations, which are now ceased, and due tithes grudged as.  
The voluntary oblations of the godly, are not now wanting, where need is.  
The 43. the Princes & higher power endued the bishoprics with lands, now they take them away. It was necessary when they had none before, but were newly erected. If any be now taken away, and sufficient left, it is not the matter we regard, but good proceeding of the Gospel: if covetousness of any man procure from the Church, where it wanteth, they shall answer it and not we.  
The 44. Ethelbert established Christianity by laws. Making special statutes and decrees for the indemnity and quiet possession of the Church goods and of the Clergy. Now no state is more open to the oppression than the Clergy. If Ethelbert established Christianity, by laws, he did more than Papists would have Princes to do now. But if the Clergy be now oppressed, it is not for want of good laws, or good will in the prince & higher powers to defend it, but by occasion of a number of dissembling Papists, to whom execution of justice in some places is committed.  
The 45. difference is unity them, where is dissension now. God be praised, we consent in all articles necessary to eternal salvation, and if the Scots by our example are come to the same unity of faith with us, it is the lords work, for whom we give him hearty thanks.  
The conclusion of this fantastical Fortress is an exhortation to Papists, not to dissemble their Papistry, nor to communicate with us, dissuading them by many examples of such as yielded not to the persecution of the Arrian heretics.  
But seeing by the word God, we can not be convinced of heresy, those examples make nothing against us.  
And yet I wish the Papists (if it be not Gods will to open their eyes that they may see the truth) yet to give over their dissembling, and openly to show themselves as they are. For whether their religion be good or bad, dissembling and counterfeiting can not be but evil.  
God be praised.    

A REJOINDER TO john Marshals reply against the answer of Master Calfhill, to the blasphemous treatise of the Crosse.  By W. Fulke D. in divinity. 

To the Reader.  
OF all the treatises sent over within these twenty years from the Papists, there is none in which appeareth less learning and modesty, nor greater arrogance and impudency, then in this one Book of martial. Who, as he termeth himself a Bachelor of Law, so more like a wrangling pettifogger in the Law, than a sober Student in Divinity, doth in a manner nothing else, but cavil, quarrel, and scold. Which as it were an easy matter to wipe away with a sharp answer, for him that would bestow his time therein: so I think it for my part neither needful nor profitable. The memory of that godly learned man Master Doctor Calfhill whom he abuseth, is written in the Book of the righteous, and shall not be afraid of any slanderers report. Omitting therefore all frivolous quarrels, I will only endeavour to answer that which hath in it any show of reason or argument to defend the idolatry of the Papists.  
In which matter also, as many things are the same which are already satisfied in my confutation of Doctor Sanders Book of Images: so I will refer the reader to those Chapters of that treatise, where he shall find the which I hope shall suffice, for the overthrow of Idolatry. This reply, as the first treatise, is divided into ten articles, all which in order I will set down, with such titles, as he giveth unto them. But first I must say a few words concerning his request made to the Bishop of London, and the rest of the superintendentes of the new Church, as it pleaseth him to call them, and his preface to the reader. His request is, that the Bishops should certify him by some pamphlet in print, whether 61. articles which he hath gathered out of Master calfhil's book, be the received and approved doctrine of the new Church of England, able to be justified by the word of God, and the Fathers, and Counsels within six hundredth years after Christ? How wise a man he is, in making this request, I leave to reasonable men to judge.  
And touching the articles themselves, I answer, that some of them be such, as the Church of England doth hold and openly profess, as that Latin service, Monkish vows, the communion in one kind, etc. are contrary to God's word, the other be particular affirmations of Master Calfhil, which in such sense as he uttered them, may be justified for true, and yet pertain not to the whole Church to maintain and defend, as whether Helaena were superstitious in seeking the cross at jerusalem, whether Dionyse and Fabian were the one suspected, the other infamed, etc. beside that a great number of them be so rend from the whole sentences whereof they were parts, that they retain not the meaning of the author, but serve to show the impudency of the caviller. As that the counsels of Christ in his Gospel, be ordinances of the Devil, the prayers of Christians a sacrifice of the devil, the council of Elibeus was a general council, etc. Wherefore I will leave this fond request, with all the railing that followeth there upon, and come to the preface, to the Reader. First he findeth himself greatly grieved, that not only ancient fathers are by M. Calfhil discredited, but also the holy cross is likened to a gallows, etc. which moved him to follow salomon's counsel, & to answer a fool according to his folly. After this he taketh upon him to confute M. calfhil's preface, in which he proveth, that no images should be in churches to any use of religion, because God forbiddeth them, Exo. 20. & Leuit. 19 in the first table of religion. His reply standeth only upon those common foolish distinctions of Idols & Images, of Latria & Doulia, which are handled more at large & with greater show of learning by D Saunder in his book of Images. Cap. 5. 6. 7. 8. whither I refer the reader for answer. Likewise, that discourse which he maketh, to prove that an image of Christ is not a lying image, is answered in the same book, Cap. 7. The authority of Epiphanius, he deferreth to answer, unto the 5. article. To Irenaeus he answereth, that he only reporteth, that the Gnostike heretics had the image of jesus, but reproveth not that fact. But he reproved them only because they placed the image of Christ with the images of Plato, Pythagoras, etc. used them as the gentiles do. This were in deed a pretty exception for a brabbling lawyer to take: but a student in divinity should understand that Irenaeus in that book & Chapter li. 1. Ca 24. declareth no fact of the heretics that was good, but his declaration is a reproof. And so it is throughout that whole book containing 35. Chapters.  
But he chargeth M. Calfhill for falsifying Augustine, in saying, that he alloweth M. Varro affirming that religion is most pure without images, first quarrelling at the quotation, which by error of the Printer is de civitate Dei, lib. 4. Cap. 3. where it should be Cap. 31. a meet quarrel for such a lawyer: secondly showing that the Latin is Castius observari sine simulachris religionem, that religion would have been more purely kept without Idols or feigned Images: as though there be any Images but feigned, and the word Imago, even in their own Latin translation of the Bible, is indifferently taken for Idolum and simulachrum, and that in many places, Deut. 4. ver. 16. 4. Reg. 11. ver. 18, Sapient Cap. 13. & 14. isaiah. 40. ver. 18. & 44. ver. 13. Ezec. 7. vers. 20 where imagines & simulachra are both placed together Ezech. 16. Ca 17. Amos. 5. ver. 23. where he sayeth, Imaginem idolorum, the image of your Idols: and many other places declare, that this counterfeit distinction was not observed, no not of the Latin interpreter. As for his other logical quiddity, wherein he pleaseth himself not a little, that religio non suscipit magis & minus, showeth that either his law is better than his Logic, or else both are not worth a straw.  
Further he chargeth M. Calfehill for adding words which are not found in Augustine, where images are placed in temples, in honourable sublimity, etc. These words are found in the Ep. 49 ad Deogratias: Cum hiis locantur sedibus, honorabili sublimitate, ut a praecantibus atque immolantibus attendantur, when they are placed in these seats, in honourable sublimity, that they are looked upon by them that pray and offer, etc. But martial looked only to the quotation, Ps. 36. & 113. Yet doth not M. Calfhill rehearse the words, but the judgement of Augustine, from which he doth nothing vary, except martial will cavil at the words, images in temples, where Augustine sayeth: Idola hiis sedibus, Idols in these seats, speaking of temples, in which images were placed. But he speaketh (saith Martial) in the Psalms, against the images of the heathen, and not of the Christians. Then read what he writeth De moribus ecclesiae Catholicae, lib. 1. Cap. 34. & de consensu Evangelist. lib. 1. Cap. 10. where you shall find his judgement of such images, as were made of Christians, to be all one with those of the Gentiles. The judgement of other doctors, whom he nameth, you shall find answered in the 14. or 13. Chapter of Master Sanders book of Images. That the jews had no images in their temple, he saith, it is a jewish and Turkish reason, to prove that we should have none. Much like the priest that would not believe in Christ, if he knew that he were a jewe. So wise he is, to compare the superstition of the wicked Turks, with the observation of the law by the godly jews. Nay, he is yet more eloquent, and showeth that the Protestants are like the Turks, in condemning of images, in allowing marriage after divorce, etc. as though we might not acknowledge one God, lest we should be like the Turks and jews, nor honour virtue, nor dispraise vice, because they do so, nor obey magistrates, nor eat and drink, because the Turks and jews do so. O deep learning of a lawyer divine.  
That Images do not teach, he sayeth it is a position more boldly advouched, then wisely proved, & then quoteth Gregory, Ep. 9 lib. 9 etc. but he is deceived, if he think we hold, that images teach not: for we affirm with the Prophet Abacuc, that they teach lies, Cap. 2. ver. 18. & vanity, jer. 10. ver. 8.  
As for the story of Amadis the Goldsmith, and the Epistle of Eleutherius fetched out of the gild hall in London, as M. Calfhill maketh no great account of them, so I pass them over, although martial would have men think, they be the strongest arguments the Protestants have, against the superstition of the cross and the usurped tyranny of the Pope.  
Finally, the excuse he maketh of his railing, by M. calfhil's example, how honest it is, I refer to wise men to consider. If M. Calfhill had passed the bonds of modesty, it were small praise in Martial to follow him, yea, to pass him. But if M. Calfhill (as indifferent men●●ay think) hath not greatly exceeded in terms of ●eate against Marshal's person, whatsoever he hath spoken against his heresies, the continual scorning, both of M. calfhil's name and his person, used so often in every leaf of his reply, in the judgement of all reasonable persons, will cause Martial to be taken for a lawless wrangler, rather than a sober and Christian lawyer.   

The first Article.  
This article hath no title, and in effect it hath no matter. 
Fulke.  For 13. leaves are spent about a needless & impertinent controversy, of the Authority of the 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. Now whether ought to be the judge, the rule, or the thing ruled, is the question. The rule say we, as the law: the Church, sayeth he, as the justicer. And then we are at as great controversy, what or where the Church is. In effect, the controversy cometh to this issue, whether he be a justicer, or an iniusticier, which pronounceth sentence contrary to the law. I would think that common reason might decide these questions. That he which giveth sentence against the law, may have the name, and occupy the place of a justicer, but a true justicer he cannot be in deed. Right so, the Popish Church, which condemneth the truth for heresy, hath usurped as the judge, but in deed is a cruel tyrant. But the controversy is not of the word, but of the meaning, and where shall that be found but in the mouth of the judge (sayeth he?) if this were true, I would never be a Bachelor of law, if I were as martial, nor yet a doctor thereof, except it were to deceive poor clyantes for their money: if there were not a sense or meaning of the law, which other men might understand as well as he that occupieth the place of the judge, that I might appeal when I saw he gave wrong sentence. But let us briefly run over his Achillean arguments.  
The Eunomians, Arrians, Eutychians, and Maximus the heretic, rejected the testimonies of the fathers, and the authority of the Church, and appealed to Scriptures. So doth many ● wrangling lawyer, to continue his fee from his cliant, appeal when he hath no cause, but received right sentence according to the law, ergo no appeal is to be admitted. This is Marshal's law, or logic, I know not whether. But what was this Maximus you name so often, Master Martial, that S. Augustine writ against Can you read your note book no better. Against Maximinus the Arrian he writeth that neither of them both was to be holden by the authority of Counsels, the Nicen, or the Ariminense, but by the authorities of the Scripture, lib. 3. Cap. 4.  
But Tertullian would have heretics convinced by the authority of the Church, and not of the Scriptures. Yea verily, but such heretics as denied certain scriptures, and perverteth the rest by their false interpretations. Such are the Protestants, sayeth Martial: for Luther denieth the Epistle to the hebrews, the Apocalypse, the Epistle of S. james, and S. jude. But Luther is not all Protestants, neither did Luther always or altogether deny them. Neither do the Protestants affirm any thing in matters of controversy, in their interpretations, but the same is affirmed by writers of the most ancient and pure Church. martial objecteth, that Christ sent not his disciples always to the Scriptures: but sometimes to the fig tree, to the flowers of the field, to the fowls of the air etc. Paul allegeth the heathen Poet, also customs & tradition. And we also use similitudes of God's creatures, and allege custom and condition, but so that the scripture be the only rule of truth, whereto whatsoever in the world agreeth, is true: whatsoever disagreeth from it, is false. The traditions of the Apostles, 
2. Th. 2. Luk. 10. 1. Io. 4. Mat. 18.  which by their writings we know to be theirs, we reverently receive, not as men's traditions, but as the doctrine of God, for we hear them even as God. Also we hear the voice of the Church admonishing us, if we give offence.  
Finally, the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, evangelists, Pastors, 
Ex●. 10. joel. 1. Eph. 4.  and doctors, we all reverence and hear, as the messengers of God, but so that they approve unto us their sayings out of the word of God, and doctrine of Christ. Likewise, we admit the writings of the fathers, so far as they agree with the writings of God, and further to be credited they themselves required not. The sayings of the doctors, that martial citeth, for the credit of old writers, you shall find satisfied in mine answer to Hoskins, almost in order as they be here set down: for one Papist borroweth of another, and few of them have any thing of their own reading. The saying of Clemens is answered lib. 1. Cap. 8. Eusebius concerning P●● and Gregory, and Hieronym, Cap. 7. The say●●● of Irenaeus and Athanasius, that we ought to hau●●course to the Apostolic Churches, which retain the doctrine of the Apostles, against new heresies, as also of Tertullian, to the like effect, we acknowledge to be true, but seeing the Church of Rome retaineth not the Apostolic doctrine, at this day, we deny it to be an Apostolic Church. Therefore as many as build upon it, or upon any ancient writers words, which hath not the holy scriptures for his warrant, as M. Cal. said, buildeth upon an evil ground. For if an Angel from heaven teach otherwise then the Apostles have preached unto us, be he accursed. Here the quarrelling lawyer findeth fault with his translation, because Euangelizavimus may be referred, as well to the Disciples, as to the Apostles, so that the Disciples preachings are to be credited as well as the Apostles, No doubt, if they preach the doctrine of the Apostles, of which the controversy is, and not of the persons that preach it. But these quarrels, sir Bachelor, are more meet for the bomme courts, where perhaps you are a prating proctor, then for the schools of divinity. We are gone out, you say, and that we confess in our apology. Yea, we are gone out of Babylon, but not out of the church of God, but abide in the doctrine of Christ. And you are gone out of the Church of God, which remain in the sink of Rome, that is departed from that which was heard from the beginning, and was sacrosanctum apud Apostolorum Ecclesias, most holy in the Apostles Churches. 
Tert. li. 4. cont. Mart. Math. 15.  You cannot abide to be charged with the saying of Christ. They worship me in vain, that teach the doctrine and precepts of men. First you say, the Apostles were men, whose traditions the Church must receive: yea sir, but they delivered no doctrine of their own. Secondly, Christ speaketh of the Scribes & Pharisees, and their fond traditions, and not of the Church and her Catholic traditions and customs. And they be Scribes and Pharisees, which even in the Church, teach a false worshipping of God, according to the doctrines and traditions of men, disannulling the commandments of God, as the Popish teachers in their doctrine of Images, communion in one kind, private Mass, etc.  
That Augustine framing a perfect preacher, willeth him to confer the places of Scripture together: you say, it is a profound conclusion, to infer, that he sendeth him not to doctors distinctions, censure of the Church, Canons of the Popes, nor traditions of the fathers: but only to quiet and content himself with the word of God. And these last words you say, 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 all which there is no mention of doctor's distinctions, Pope's Canons, etc. But this is an argument ab authoritate negatiuè. Make as much and as little as you will of Augustine's authority, Master Calfhill hath rightly inferred upon Augustine's judgement, that if conference of Scriptures will make a perfect preacher, which you grant, he needeth neither doctors distinctions, nor Church censures, etc. but may quiet and content himself with the only word of God.  
But it would make an horse to break his halter, to see how martial proveth out of Augustine, that God teacheth us 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 most of the Catholic Churches, and the interpretations of learned men: as though all those were not to be referred to the dew conference of scriptures, where only resteth the substance of doctrine, and the authority of faith, and not in doctors distinctions, Church censures, Pope's Canons etc. which have no ground in the Scriptures, or else be contrary to them. Where Master Calfhill showeth that as before the new testament was written, all things were examined according to the words and Sermons of the Apostles, so after the new testament was written, all things ought to be examined according to their writings, because there is none other testimony of credit extant of their sermons & writings. martial replieth out of Saint Augustine, that we have many things by tradition, which are not written, which being universally observed, it were madness to break, Ep. 118. But Augustine speaketh not of doctrine, but of ceremonies or observations. Out of Hierom ad Pam. he objecteth that our Creed is not written in the Scriptures, which is utterly false, although the form of the symbol be not set down, as we rehearse it.  
Thirdly, out of Epiphanius contra Apostolic. li. 2. Heres. 61. that we must use tradition, because all things cannot be taken out of the holy Scriptures. Therefore the holy Apostles delivered certain things in writing, and certain things in tradition, etc. But they delivered nothing in tradition contrary to their writings, neither omitted they to write any thing that was necessary for our salvation. The matter whereof Epiphanius speaketh, is that it is a tradition of the Apostles, that it is sin to marry after virginity decreed, and yet he holdeth, that it is better to marry after virginity decreed, then to burn, contrary to the doctrine of the Papists. But martial frankly granteth, that no doctor is to be credited against the Scripture and the content of the whole Church. Yet where Master Calfhill said, that no man in any age was so perfect, that a certain truth was to be builded on him, bringing examples of Aaron and Peter, the one the high Priest of the jews, the other affirmed by the Papists 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 form of induction, but of the place a maiore ad minus.  
After this, (as he doth nothing but cavil) he chargeth Master Calfhill for corrupting Saint Augustine saying: Truth me not, nor credit my writings, etc. Proem. lib. 3. de Trinit. For Saint Augustine sayeth not: trust me not. But he confesseth that he sayeth: Do not addict thyself to my writings, as to the Canonical Scriptures. See what a corruption here is, when Master Calfhill rendereth not the words, but the meaning of Augustine.  
Again, saint Basil (he sayeth) is vilely abused, because Master Calfhill sayeth, Saint Basil setteth forth by a proper similitude, with what judgement the fathers of the Church should be read. Conc. ad Adol. whereas Basil speaketh of profane writers. As though Basils' similitude may not serve to show how both should be read, because he speaketh but of one sort.  
Likewise he crieth out that Saint Jerome is not truly alleged, because the Printer in the English translation of Hieroms words hath omitted this word not, which he hath set down in the Latin. The 4. pretty persons he putteth upon Master Calfhill, as foolish and childish I omit, only the slanderers persons I will touch: In saying, that the fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel in ceremonies. He chargeth M. Calfhill to be a slanderer. Because God hath not suffered all the fathers to decline, lest hell gates should have prevailed against his Church. Although M. Calfhill speak of those father's only, whose writings are extant, yet the gates of hell in idle ceremonies, did but assault, they did not prevail against the Church. And these fathers departed not from the Gospel, but declined from the simplicity thereof. But you Papists have departed from the Gospel and doctrine of salvation, in setting up a new sacrifice, in seeking justification by works, in overthrowing the true and spiritual worship of God. As for the two judges, the word and the spirit, he denieth them, finding many defects in the word: As that it is senseless, dumb, deaf, not able to prove itself to be the word of God, having no more power to be judge and decide controversies, than the book of statutes to put on my lord chief justices robes, and to come to the King's bench, and give sentence. I think there is no Christian man, but abhorreth to read these blasphemies. But let us see, whether the book of statutes (although it put on no robes) is not judge, even over my lord chief justice himself, who is a minister serving to pronounce the law, not a King to alter the law: for he himself must be obedient to the law. Now in all controversies that be de iure, either the law is plain to be understood, or it is obscure: If it be plane, as that a felon must be hanged, or the son must inherit his father, etc. the judge pronouncing the law with authority, and execution following his sentence, bridleth the obstinate person that will not obey the law, which he knoweth as well as the judge. If the law be hard to be understood, the judge must seek the interpretation thereof, according to the mind of the lawmaker, and not according to the his own fantasy. So that in all cases, the judge hath no authority over the law, but under the law: so that if the give wrong sentence, both he and his sentence are to be judged by law. Or else why do you Martial in your civil law courts, so often cry out, sit liber judex, let the book be judge? If you will not allow the book of God's law to be judge, even over them which have authority as justices have in the common law, to pronounce it, and to declare it.  
The Spirit he refuseth to be judge, because it is invisible, secret, unknown, unable to be gone to, but in the Church: therefore the Church is the judge, and neither the word nor the Spirit. But the Spirit by his own substance incomprehensible, is by his effects in the holy Scriptures visible, revealed, known, and able to be gone unto, therefore a sufficient judge, taking witness of the Scriptures, and bearing witness unto them. For that majesty of truth, that power of working, that uniform consent which is in all the Scriptures inspired of God, maketh a wonderful difference of them from all writings of men of all sorts.  
But let us see Marshal's arguments against the Spirit of God, to be judge of the interpretation of the Scriptures. Paul and Barnabas in the controversy of circumcision, went not to the word and Spirit, but to the Apostles and Elders at jerusalem. O blockhead and shameless ass. Paul and Barnabas doubted not of the question, but sought the generally quiet of the whole Church by consent of Council. But whether went the Apostles and Elders for decision of the question? but to the word and Spirit. Read Act. 15.  
Again, he citeth Deuteronom. 17. that the people in controversies should resort to the priests for judgement: but where should they fetch their judgement, but of the law of God? as it is in the same place.  
Again, Christ hath appointed Apostles, Evangelists, etc. therefore it is not a general precept, for all men to try, all men to judge what doctrine they receive, because all be not Apostles, Evangelists, etc. Then in vain said Christ to all men, 
james 5. 1. john 4. Acts 17.  search the scriptures, in vain the Apostles try the spirits, neither did the Boerheans well, that daily sought the Scriptures, to see, if those things were so as the Apostles taught.  
martial is to be pitied if he know no difference between authority of public teaching, and the trial and examination of doctrine, whereof this pertaineth to all men, the other to such only as are called thereto. But martial proceedeth to show, that as GOD appointed one high Priest to the jews, to avoid schisms, so he appointed Peter among the Christians: and for this purpose he citeth divers sentences of the ancient Fathers, which all in order almost, the reader shall find cited and satisfied in mine answer to Doctor Sanders book of the rock of the Church Cap. 5. except one place of Tertullian De pudicitia, which I marvel this Popish Lawyer would allege, being so contrary to his purpose, but that the poor man understood it not. Qualis es etc. What art thou overthrowing and changing the intention of our Lord, giving this personally to Peter: Upon thee (said he) I will build my Church. If it were personally said to Peter, (Sir Bachelor) counsel with Baldus and Bertholdus, whether it go by succession to the Pope or no? Which Tertullian denieth to pertain to every Elder of the Church, because it was spoken personally to Peter.  
And now at the length beginneth he to come to the argument of his book, the sign of the cross. Which he said was the fourth signification of the word (Cross) in Scripture, and calleth it the material and mystical sign of the cross, which Master Calfhill denieth to be once mentioned in Scripture, in that sense that martial taketh it. martial repeateth that which he had said before, that Isaiah cap. 49. saith: I will set out mine sign on high to the people, which Jerome upon that place expoundeth to be the standard of the cross, that it may be fulfilled which is written, the earth is full of his praise. Et iterum etc. And again. In all the earth his name is wonderful. Which words following immediately, Martial craftily suppresseth, and falleth into a brabbling matter, that preaching which Master Calfhill said was this standard, is not the only standard or sign lifted up by GOD for conversion of the Gentiles, but miracles and good examples of life, etc. Whereas the question is, whether the Popish sign of the cross, be the sign spoken by Esay and Jerome. And the exposition added by Jerome, showeth plainly, that he meaneth not a red or blue cross banner, but the preaching of Christ crucified, whereby the earth is filled with the praise of GOD, and his name is wonderful in all the earth. But martial in the end concludeth, that it hath pleased the ancient Fathers to appoint and ordain the sign of the cross, to he one mean among many, by which the praise of GOD is set forth. Where he should have proved, that the sign of the cross (as he taketh it) is mentioned in the scriptures. Other cavils and slanders not more false than foolish, I will clearly omit, as I purposed in the beginning, and follow only such matter as is proper to the question in controversy, namely the sign of the cross.  
The second text, to prove that the sign of the cross is mentioned in the scripture, he citeth out of jere. 4. Lift up a sign in Zion which; Jerome likewise expoundeth, Lift up the standard of the cross in an high tower, that is, in the height of the Church. Concerning this interpretation of Jerome, how apt it is for the place, I will spend no time with Master martial: only this is sufficient for the purpose, that Saint Jerome meaneth not the cross on the top of the steeple, but the passion of Christ: whereto he exhorteth the people to run for aid as to a standard of comfort, against the enemy that was coming upon them.  
The third text is Matth. 24. The sign of the son of man shall appear in the clouds: which divers of the old writers expound to be the sign of the cross. Some to be Christ himself, as Chrysostom in Matt. 24. Hom. 49. Some to be the cross itself on which he died, as Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 77. and Theophilact. in 24. Matth. Some other the passion or sign of the cross, as Jerome upon that place: so that the Doctors being in divers opinions, & speaking doubtfully, there is no certainty of the matter. That the sign of the son of man is Christ himself, as Chrysostom rehearseth some to have thought in his time, is the most probable opinion, because both Mark cap. 13. and Luke 21. do seem so to expound that sign of the son of man in Matthew. But martial is such a perilous Logician, that he will admit nothing but necessary consequences, which we must be bold to urge and require of him, for the mention of the sign of the cross in such variety of Doctor's opinions, and a matter so obscure.  
The fourth text is Ezechiel 9 the sign Thau set on the foreheads of them that should be preserved from destruction. But what argument or authority hath he to prove, that this mark was the sign of the cross? None at all, only he quarelleth after his manner, against M. calfhil's reasons, which show it was not the sign of the cross, but an inward spiritual mark. And lest he should flee to the figure of the Samaritane letter Thau, which Jerome saith in his time, was somewhat like a cross. Jerome himself showeth that the Septuagintes, Aquila, and Symmachus translate Thava mark, as the word signifieth: only Theodotion, left the Hebrew word untranslated, which because it is the name of the last Hebrew letter, divers thought to signify Thorah, the law, whereof they were observers that were so marked. Cyprian also taketh it for a mark, without naming the letter Thau. Contra demetrianum. Wherefore seeing here is nothing, whereby the fashion of the mark may be gathered, fond doth martial gather, that it was the sign of the cross.  
The fift text, is the mark commanded to be set upon all God's servants in the Apoc. 7. which martial out of Thomas Aquinas concludeth to be the sign of of the cross, but that is disproved by M. Calfhil's three reasons, which martial like an impudent wrangler, will understand only of the place of Ezechiel. 1. The spirit of life and faith is not given with the sign of the cross. 2. Which is not sufficient to discern the good from the bad. 3. But is received of all sorts, therefore the seal spoken of in those places is not the sign of the cross.  
Marshal's cross not being found in the holy Scriptures, hath yet often remembrance among the ancient Fathers, whom M. Calfhill doth justly reprove in this behalf, so highly to extol that sign, which hath no ground in the word of God, either in contention against the Gentiles that disdained it, or in emulation of the heretics that first used it. For if all records of ecclesiastical antiquity be sought, that are authentical, and not manifestly counterfeited, there shall no mention be found of Marshal's cross in the fourth signification, before the superstition of the Valentinian heretics, which called the cross, Horon, confirmativam crucem, which Iraeneus lib. 1. ca 1. doth speak of. So doth Epiphanius Contra Valent. Haer. 31. But against this reproof of the old writers, martial hath a plausible common place to sport himself, in which notwithstanding every wise man can see, how fond he behaveth himself, to be patron to them, which either need not his defence, where they writ well, or can not be justified by him where they writ amiss. I will therefore pass over all such fruitless controversies, and keep me only to the argument. That Chrysostom was immoderate sometimes in extolling the sign of the cross, and such like matters, either Martial must confess, or else excuse it by a rhetorical hyperbole: as where he saith of Saint Paul's chain: Si quis me coelo condonet omni, vel ea qua Pauli manus vinciebatur catena illam ego honore praeponerem: If any man could reward me with all heaven, or else with that chain wherewith Paul's hands were bound, I would prefer that chain in honour. Such are many excessive speeches in Chrysostom, both of the sign of the cross, of the lords Supper, of Baptism, and other things. In Tertullians' time the sign of the cross was used among Christians, to show themselves to be Christians, against the Gentiles, if it were not a piece of Montanus superstition.  
But whereas martial citeth Constantinus, for the commendation of his cross, he showeth himself an egregious ignorant person, both in antiquity and in the history. For the sign which Constantine commended, to be a healthful sign and true token of virtue, by which he delivered the city from tyrants, was not the sign of the cross, but the character of the name of Christ, which was showed to him from heaven, with this inscription, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this GOD, not in this sign, thou shalt overcome.  
And least martial should cavil at the sign of the cross, named by Eusebius, De Vit. Const. lib. 1. you shall understand, that he describeth the standard of Constantine to have been a long spear, in the top whereof a bar went overthwart like a cross to hang the banner upon, which even the Heathen Emperors used. But in the banner was set forth in gold and precious stones that sign which Constantine did see, which was the Greek letter P, with the letter X, in the midst thereof, after this manner, which is to be seen in many hundrethes of ancient coins, both of Constantine, and other Christian Emperors which is the Character of the name of Christ. Agreeing with the words of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By which you may see how ridiculously Martial and the Papists look only to the cross staff upon which the banner hanged, and see not the very wholesome sign in deed, which was described in the banner, namely in the name of Christ, by whom Constantine had so glorious victories.  
But Martial omitting to speak of the cross used among the Heathen Priests of Serapis, will discuss Master Calfhil's two rules. The one: that whatsoever is brought in under the cloak of good intent, is not straightway allowable.  
To this he sayeth, that some things are brought in by private men, without authority of the Pope, and for private men he counteth the bishops of Spain, and France, in their provincial counsels: these bind not generally, except the Pope allow them: some things are received by tradition & custom generally received unaltred, such is the cross: some are brought in by tradition and custom, but not generally received, as that infants should receive the communion, &c: such the cross is not. But seeing he hath not concluded the contradiction of Master Calfhils sixth rule, it standeth still unmovable. That some things are brought in of a good intent, which are not allowable.  
The second rule is: what so ever hath been upon good occasion received once, must not necessarily be retained still, but by advice of Stephanus bishop of Rome, if it be turned to superstition, be altered by them that come after. These after-comers, saith Martial, are none other but the bishops of Rome his successors, who as they made the law, so they must repeal it. But Stephanus sayeth. Si nonnulli ex praedecessoribus & maioribus nostris fecerunt aliqua, Naming not only his praedecessours, but also his Elders, wherefore he meaneth that not only his successors, but also his aftercomers in every particular Church, as well as his successors in the Church of Rome, aught to abolish with good authority such abused customs. But martial will not acknowledge that crossing hath bred such inconveniences, that the inward faith hath been untaught, & that the virtue hath been given to that sign, which only proceedeth from him which is signified. For crossing was not the cause, but the negligence of the Clergy. As though there may not be many causes of one thing. And if crossing were but an occasion of such inconveniences, there were good cause to take it away. Also he denieth that they attribute the virtue of the sign, without relation to the merits of Christ's passion: whereas M. Calfhil speaketh not of such shifts as crafty Lawyers can make for their excuses, but of the opinion of the ignorant people, who have thought without any further relation, that the sign of the cross was an holy, blessed, and wholesome thing. And what do they that use the example of julian, who crossing himself of custom, and not with any relation to Christ whom he despised, prove what virtue the sign of the cross hath, when the devils immediately avoided, do they not manifestly ascribe virtue, to the sign without relation of the maker? Yea, saith Martial, but Christ gave such virtue to that sign by his death and passion. Show that out of the Scriptures, and the controversy is at an end.  
But Martial the Lawyer, for the virtue of the cross citeth Martial the Apostle, for so he will be called, & was as his cousin Martial the Lawyer affirmeth, one of of the 72. Disciples of Christ. But seeing he and his epistles have slept seven or eight hundredth years in a corner, that they were never heard of by Eusebius, Jerome, Gennadius nor any other of those times, he cometh to late now to challenge the name of an Apostle or Disciple of Christ, whose name or writings in so many hundredth years no man hath registered. But this argument is of authority negative, quod martial. But what argument have you so good to prove him authentical, as this is probable to prove him counterfeit? Nay if we believe Martial, Master Calfhil hath falsified the Scripture, in saying, that no man dare come near, nor resist Leviathan, and Behemoth the devils, for beside the quotation is false cap. 40. for 41. The Popish translation hath not so, and Christ his Apostles and faithful do resist the Devil. Yea sir but not with sword nor spear, whereof he speaketh, nor with your cross, but with spiritual armour. As for the error of the quotation & your translation, every child may see how fond a quarrel it is.  
The excuse that Master Calfhill maketh for Damascen, seeing Martial doth not allow, let him make a better himself: for some of Damascens errors were such as Martial himself and the Papists will not allow.  
But Lactantius maketh the blood of the pascal Lamb sprinkled on the door post, a figure of the cross on men's foreheads. That is false in your sense Master martial, for he speaketh allegorically of the spiritual impression of of the blood of Christ by faith, and that his words declare, where he saith: that Christ is salvation To all which have written, 
Lib. 4. cap. 26. De ver● sap.  the sign of blood, that is the sign of the cross, upon which he shed his blood on their foreheads. But Christ is not salvation to all that have your sign of the cross on their bodily foreheads. But whereas Lactantius in the next Chapter saith, that devils are chased away both by the name of Christ, and by the sign of his passion: if it pleased God in those times, by such outward signs to confound his adversaries, what is that to defend the superstitious and erroneous abuse of those signs at this time?  
And here Martial falleth into another brabble, for mistaking his argument, which is not worth a straw: the end is, the cross is like a sacrament, although that it be not as good as a sacrament. But wherein it is like? it hath neither institution nor element, nor promise, nor effect, of a sacrament, than it is as like as an apple is like an oyster. You say it is instituted by tradition. Prove that tradition to have come from Christ, and his Apostles. I have showed, it came from heretics. Again God said to Costantine In hoc signo vince. I have showed, that God spoke neither of a cross, nor of a sign. And yet if he had, it was but a particular vision authorizing no general observation. You say it may be a sacrament as well as bread and wine which hath no promise: you lie like an arrogant hypocrite. For bread and wine in the use of the lords Supper, hath as good promise, as water in baptism. Concerning the effect of the sacraments, and how they be causes of grace, not as principal efficients, but as instrumental means, by which God useth to work in the faithful, it were to begin a new matter, to stand in argument with you, which do nothing but wrangle, scoff, and rail in this argument, as you do in all the rest.  
Wherefore to return to the cross, Master Calfhil saith, that if there were such necessity in the cross to fight against Satan, the Apostles dealt not wisely to omit such a necessary weapon.  
martial answereth, that neither he nor the Fathers defend it as necessary. Well then, we have gained thus much, that the cross is a needless weapon against the devil. But if it had been necessary, he saith, it had been none oversight in the Apostles, which have in some epistles omitted more needful matters.  
As though they were bound to speak of all matters in every Epistle. But of the use of the cross, they never speak, no not where they instruct a Christian man to fight against the Devil, against whom it is needful to use all weapons that be of any force. The quarrel of altering Saint Peter's words I omit, as childish. Master Calfhill rehearseth his meaning, and not his words.  
The other argument that followeth of heretics resembling Antichrist in denying, you shall find answered in my confutation of D. Sanders Rock Cap. 18. in the eleventh 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 deed the error of number is a small matter, but when a man will follow wilfully a corruption for a truth, it cannot be excused. That devils fly when they see the cross, is question 15. in the best reformed prints, whatsoever martial doth follow. But to the purpose, except Martial can declare unto us, with what eyes the devils behold the cross, he shall have much a do to persuade us, that this author speaketh of his sign of the cross in this place. Otherwise I doubt not but when devils consider the conquest of of Christ upon the cross they tremble and flee away, and are miserably tormented, as Athanasius saith: but not when so ever they see the cross borne in procession, or set up in the market place, or pointed in the air, either by a superstitious Papist, or by a devilish conjuror. Saint Antony's council, as great and as good as you make him, may well be suspected, seeing it hath no ground in the holy scriptures. That Chrysostom alloweth signing with the cross 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 that faith in the death of Christ is sufficient without the sign of the cross in the body: yet will he not grant it to be superfluous, but resembleth it to the incarnation and passion of Christ, without which we might be saved by the absolute power of God, to the use of ministers, good works, etc. Whereas we ought to say that all these things are necessary, because God hath so ordained 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 Marshal's cross, but of the passion of Christ, the whole context of his words proveth, as M. Calfhil showeth. But martial replieth that he saith: So great is the virtue of the cross of Christ, that if it be set before our eyes, and faithfully retained in our mind, so that we look still upon the death of Christ, with the eyes of our mind, no concupiscence, etc. can overcome us. These words (saith he) prove two crosses, one before the eyes, the other before the mind, but if he would shore up his eyes he might see, that Origen speaketh not of the eyes of the body, but of the eyes of the mind. As for the tautology that he would avoid, it may please his wisdom to understand, that the explaining of a Metaphor, is not tautology, or vain repetition.  
That Cassiodorus, and Lactantius speak of the sign of the cross it is granted, but because they speak of it beside the Book of God, Master Calfhill doth well to disprove their reasons, as where Cassiodore compareth that sign of the cross upon the faithful, to the Prince's stamp on the coin, the comparison is nought, for the sign of the cross which is upon hypocrites, showeth them not to be Christ's servants. Neither did Christ give any such outward sign, by which they should be known, that would profess to be his servants, but baptism. How good Christians the Friars that are the greatest crossers be, I will not stand to discuss, their hypocrisy is too well known in the world.  
Again where Lactantius joineth the sign of the cross with the name of Christ, to be of force to drive away devils, he doth as if a man should join a straw with a spear to run at tilt withal. For the name of Christ is sufficient, and needeth none assistance of the sign of the cross to cast out devils, where Christ hath given that power and faith. Yet Martial objecteth, that the name of Christ was not sufficient to cast out some kind of devils, as in example of the man's son. Matt, 17. But it was not for want of the sign of the cross, but for want of faith, which must be obtained at the hands of God by prayer and fasting. He would have scripture, whereby the sign of the cross is forbidden to be used, as though every indifferent thing that may be abused, is expressed by name. To make a sign or figure of the cross, is an indifferent thing, to make it for a defence against devils, is a superstitious thing, and forbidden by all such texts of Scripture forbid superstition, and confidence reposed in any thing, saving in God only, by such means as he hath appointed.  
That young novices in the faith were crossed, before they were baptized in Augustine's time, it need to be no question: and yet it followeth not: that those words of Augustine, which martial citeth, De Symb. ad Catech. lib. 2. cap. 1. were spoken of the signing, but of that which was signified by the sign, as Master Calfhil answereth. The rest of this article is spent in frivolous quarrels, in which is no argument to uphold the superstitious use of the cross, but that devils are afraid of it, as in the story of julian, and a jew, in which God declared, what force it had Ex opere operato, of the work wrought even without faith, but this he maketh extraordinary. A simple force that the Devil should seem to fly from them, in whose hearts he dwelled still. But martial would know, how Master Calfhill is assured that the Devil did counterfeit fear, and was not afraid in deed. Verily I think there need to be no better reason given, then that in outward appearance he pretended to fly from their bodily presence, from whose hearts he departed not at all, or rather for their wicked conjuring entired with greater force. How little the devil is afraid of the sign of the cross, where faith is not, the story of the seven sons of Sceva declareth Act. 19 where the Devil being conjured by the name of jesus, whom Paul preached, fell upon the conjurers and tormented them: unless martial think it was because they lacked the sign of the cross, which would have made them fly away when the name of jesus and Paul prevailed not against them. To conclude it cannot be denied, but divers of the ancient fathers affirm more of the sign of the cross, than they can justify by the holy Scripture, and yet they are abused oftentimes by Martial and such as he is, as though they spoke of the sign, when they had respect only to the death and passion of Christ, as before is showed, and more remaineth afterward to be showed.   

The second Article.  
That the cross of Christ was prefigured in the law of nature, 
Martial.  foreshown by the figures of Moses law, denounced by the prophets, and showed from heaven in the time of grace.  
Master Calfhil said, 
Fulke.  that the sign of the cross was neither prefigured in the law of nature, nor foreshowed by the figures of Moses law, nor denounced by the prophets, nor showed from heaven in the time of grace, but the passion of Christ & manner of his death. Against whom cometh forth Martial and offereth to prove, that the cross whereon Christ died, was prefigured, etc. which is no contradiction of M. calfhil's assertion. Although the fathers rather dally in trifling allegories, then sound to prove that the cross was prefigured in those places which he allegeth: as August. Contra Faust. lib. 12. cap. 34. that the two sticks which the widow of Sarepta gathered, did prefigure the cross whereon Christ died, not only by the name of wood, but by the number of the sticks, Et de 5. heres. ad quod vult de. cap. 2. that Moses lifting up his hands to heaven, did prefigure the cross whereby Christ should redeem the world: So saith Tertullian and Augustine in divers places. All which prove not that the image or sign of the cross, but that the cross itself, whereon Christ died, was prefigured, whereof we make no question, but it might be, seeing it was in God's determination that Christ should die on the cross: although we would wish sounder proofs than these, for such prefiguration. Here would Martial excuse his ridiculous argument, because it is not in mode and figure, but in deed it faileth both in form and matter, for his minor is false, that the sign of the cross was prefigured by the hands of Moses. As though there were no difference between the cross on which Christ suffered, & a superstitious sign of the cross that a Papist maketh: Concerning the sign Thau in Ezechiel cap. 9 I have spoken sufficiently in the first article, that it was not the figure of any letter like a cross, but a mark unnamed, or described as Apo. 7. And whereas Jerome saith, that the Samaritans had a letter somewhat like a cross, it is not to be through that the Samaritans had the true form of letters, and the jews lost it. Chrysostom draweth it to the Greek letter, and trifleth of the number which the letter Tau signifieth: Tertullian is indifferent between the Latin latter and the Greeke, & setteth this T for the mark of his forehead, differing somewhat from our Popish ✚, 
In Mark. H 14. adver. Mar. li. 30.  for which cause martial calleth the character of the Latin letter, Tau saying Our Tau is a sign of the cross. But of this mark more. Art. 1. and in my answer to D. Sanders book of Images Cap. 13. or 12. Concerning the figure of the cross, that was in the old time in the idol Serapis, whereunto he thinketh scorn to be sent for the antiquity of that sign, he answereth out of Socrates, that it was there set by the providence of God, as the inscription of the altar in Athens, and among the hieroglyphical letters of the Egyptian priests, signified life to come. But this proveth no more the superstitious use thereof, then the alter in Athens proveth, that we should set up such altars, and dedicate them to the unknown God. Next followeth the brawl about the story of Constantine's cross, which should be the figure of the cross showed from heaven in the time of grace, wherein Martial noteth no less than six contradictions & four lies in, in M. Calfhil, but of them let the reader judge.  
The sign showed, I have proved before, not to have been Marshals cross, but the Character of the name of Christ, and so doth Constantinus himself call it, speaking to Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Holding forth thy Character I have overcome, etc. meaning the standard in which that Character was embroidered. But of this I have spoken sufficient Art. 1. and against D. Sanders book of images cap. 13. Ar. or after the error of his print. After much wrangling and brabbling about M. calfhil's principles, wherein it were easy to display Marshal's folly, but that I have professed to omit such by matters, he cometh to the sign of the cross showed to julian, & marked in his soldiers apparel: which if it were true, as Sozomenus reporteth it, yet proveth it not that the sign of the cross was showed from heaven that it should be used of Christians: and the less, because it was showed to none but jews, and forsakers of Christian religion, as Master Calfhill noteth: which might probably be thought to be the mark of persecutors, rather than of Christians. But seeing the Sign of the cross hath very often times appeared not only in clouds, but also on men's apparel, with divers other sights, as Conradus Lycosthenes in his book De Prodigijs observeth, whether the cause of those apparitions be natural, or supernatural, or sometime perhaps artificial, the appearing of that sign from heaven doth no more argue an allowance of the Popish ceremony of crossing in religion, than the appearing of other shapes and sights in heaven, do teach us to frame ceremonies of armour, of horsemen, of beasts, of trees, of pillars, of circles, and such like, because the figures of them have been showed from heaven. So that hitherto the sign of the cross hath not been proved to have been prefigured in the law of nature, nor of Moses, neither denounced by the prophets, nor used by the Apostles, nor showed from heaven to be a pattern of the allowance of superstitious crossing among the Papists.   

The third Article.  
That every Church, chapel, and Oratory erected to the honour and service of God, 
Martial.  should have the sign of the cross.  
First it is to be remembered, 
Fulke.  that for this position he hath no show of the authority of the holy scriptures, nor yet the testimony of any ancient writer, that any Church, chapel, or Oratory should have any cross graven or painted within it or upon it for 500 years after Christ. Eusebius describing diverse Churches builded in his time, showeth no such necessary furniture of a Christian Church, although, he set forth even the fashion of the stalls or stools where the ministers should sit lib. 10. cap. 4.  
But Martial to have show of antiquity, beginneth with a new found old doctor, called Abdias, whose authority, seeing Master Calfhill rejecteth as a mere countefet, Martial spendeth certain leaves in quarreling at some of his reasons, and the rest he passeth over because he can say nothing against them. But touching the credit of this Abdias, if any man be not satisfied with M. calfhil's reasons. I refer him further to the Bishop of Sarums book against Harding. Art 1. Diu. 5. p. 8.  
To speak of the vow of virginity supposed to be made by the virgin Marie, it is impertinent to the cause. It cometh somewhat nearer, that he defendeth building of Churches in the honour of saints, because some Churches of old have had the name of saints. But Augustine saith of the Saints. Quare honoramus eos charitate, non servitute, nec eis Templa construimus, nolunt enim se sic honorari a nobis, quia nos ipsos cùm boni simus, templa summi Deiesse noverunt. Wherefore we honour them with love, not with service: Neither do we build Churches to them, for they will not be so honoured of us, because they know that we ourselves when we are good, are the temples of the highest God: De vera religion. Ca 55. Also Ep. 174. Pascentio He proveth the holy ghost to be God, because he hath a temple. Also Euch. ad Laurent. Cap. 56. The like judgement he hath de civis. Dei. li. 8. Cap. 27. & li. 22. Ca 10. showing that it is a divine honour proper to God, to have temples erected to his honour, and declaring that the Martyrs churches were places set up in their memory, not temples in their honour.  
But martial finding nothing for the space of 500 years after Christ for his purpose, at length stumbleth upon a Canon of the provincial Council of Orleans in France: that No man should build a Church before the Bishop came & set up a cross. This canno made in those days, showeth that churches before the making thereof were builded without a cross, neither bindeth it any, but such as build churches within the province of Orleans. Beside that it may be doubted of the antiquity of the Canon, seeing it is not found in the records of that council, but taken out of the Pope's Canon law, where is most counterfeit stuff. Beside that it is not observed among the Papists themselves, that before any church, chapel, or Oratory be builded, the bishop of the diocese should come and make a cross there. The next Canon he citeth our of the Council of Toures the 2. Vt corpus domini in altari, non in armario, sed sub crucis titulo componatur, that the Lords body be laid on the altar, not in a chest or almery, but under the title of the cross. But Martial doth english it thus: That the body of our Lord consecrated upon The Altar, be not reposed and set in the revestry, but under the rood. He braggeth that when he was Usher of Winchester school, he taught his scholars the true signification of the Latin words. 
Pro Clu.  But beside that he translateth Armarium a revestry, 
Pro Cel.  which Tully useth for a place wherein money was kept, 
In Ant.  which could not well be an open house, & also maketh a manifest difference between Armarium & Sacrar●●●, beside also that he calleth titulum crucis the rood, where findeth he in this sentence the Latin word for his English word, consecrated? But to the purpose of the cross, this Canon showeth, that in old time they used to lay it otherwise then under the title of the cross, whether they meant thereby the sign of the cross, or these words, jesus Naz. rex judaeorum, which was the title of the cross, as they had in those days many ceremonies grown out of use, and therefore not understood of us.  
The third Council is a Canon of the sixth general Council at Constantinople in Trullo, which in the margin he calleth the Council of Chalcedon in Trullo. Can. 73. which M. Calfhil could not find in that Council, because it is certain, & confessed by Geranza, Marshal's author, that the sixth Council of Constantinople in Trullo made no ceremonies but of the faith, & that these which he setteth forth, were made privately by them long after in the days of justinian, therefore they have neither the authority of Canons, nor be free from suspicion of forgery. And yet the Canon alleged, proveth not this article, for it only commandeth crosses that were made in the pavement to be put out. Nay, saith Martial, the prohibition of the cross to be made on the ground, permitteth it to be made in all other places. For a prohibition restrictive of a thing to be done in one place, is a lawful permission for all other places, which are not namely included in that prohibition. And for this he referreth himself to the judgement of the lawyers. But I think his law deceiveth him in this point, as much as his divinity almost in every point. For if the kings edict forbidden swearing, fight, brawling in his court, I suppose he doth not permit these things as lawful in all other places. The last Canon which forbade the laying of the lords body in the vestri, doth not lawfully permit it to be laid in the belfry. The captain's prohibition, that no man shall discharge his belly within the precinct of the camp, is not a lawful permission that a soldier may defile a church without the camp.  
The law that forbiddeth the Prince's image to be made on the pavement, is not a lawful permission that the same may be set upon the high altar, what Marshal's law is in these cases, I know not, but my reason serveth me not to allow of those prohibitions for lawful permission. And where these Canon makers say: They did reverence the lively cross with mind, tongue, and sense. martial inferreth, that this word sense, declareth that they had a sensible cross, to which they might show their reverence with their external senser: Which senses Martial? their sight, their hearing, their smelling, their tasting, or their feeling. Did you teach your scholars at Winchester thus to interpret? was it the image of the cross, or the lively cross that showed them that saving health, which they profess to reverence in word and mind? And were you went to construe Cum seeing, vivifica crux the living cross, ostenderit doth show. For thus you give me example to play with you. And if one of your boys that learned Terence, had so construed, would you not have straight way asked him, Cuius modi & temporis oftenderit, if he had annswered, the Preterperfect tense: you would have demanded, whether doth, be the sign of that temps, or have. If have, then have not you rightly translated Cum crux vivifica illud sab●● are nobis ostenderit: Seeing the living cross doth show unto us that healthful thing. Wherefore to leave this trifling, the Canon is this: Seeing the living cross (that is to say the passion of Christ) hath showed unto us that saving health, it behoveth us to employ all our study, that we may give unto it, by which we are saved from our old fall, that honour which is convenient. Wherefore, giving reverence unto it with mind, speech, and understanding. we command that the figures of the cross which are made of some in the ground and pavement, be utterly taken away, lest the trophy of our victory be injuried by treading of those that pass over it.  
It is not without fraud, that beside your false translation, you have omitted per quam ab antiquo lapsu seruati sumus, lest every popish woman might see, that the Canon speaketh not of honour given to the image of the cross, whereby we are not saved, but to the passion of Christ.  
But martial rejecteth the Council of Constantinople condemning images, as M. Calfhill doth the 2. of Nice, allowing them. The best way than as Augustine conncelleth the heretic Maximinus, were to give over the hold of Counsels on both sides, & try the matter by the word of God.  
It is a fond quarrel that he picketh to M. Calfhill, of the time when the Eliberine council was kept, if it be ancienter than he supposeth, it is of greater credit, for the latter times were more corrupt. And whereas he gi●deth at the marriage of ministers, because in the 27. Canon of that Council, the bishop or priest was forbidden to have any woman to dwell with him, but either his sister or his daughter being a virgin & professed to God, he showeth both his falsehood & his folly: his falsehood, for that he translateth extraneam which is a strange woman, no other woman. His folly, in seeing the priests daughter, he cannot see his wife but the 33. Canon commandeth them abstinence as from their wives, & begetting of children. I answer, if the Canon were not to be understood of a temporal abstinence, the general Council 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 walls. First he repeateth his principle of law, before set down for prohibition, the pictures are only forbidden, & not other images: as though he that forbiddeth wounding permitteth murdering, beside that, they should be simple images in which were no picture or painting. Secondly, he saith, that pictures on walls only are forbidden, but therein he lieth, for they are generally forbidden in the church, ergo not in walls only. Thirdly he saith, here is an evident proof, that pictures were then worshipped. For this argument followeth necessarily upon these words. That was worshipped, that was forbidden to be painted in the walls: but pictures were forbidden to be painted upon walls, ergo, pictures were worshipped. Answer M. Calfhill. Who would have thought that an Usher of Winchester & student in Louvain, that teacheth us an old lawyer's point, would also teach us a new Logic point, to conclude affirmatively in the second figure, & that all upon particulars? Answer M. Calf. quod Martial. Nay, answer goose to such an argument. And reason who will any longer with such an ass about this matter, for I will hearken to his law, seeing his Logic is no better. For the better understanding of a statute or a Canon diverse circumstances are to be considered. This was law enough to make him a bachelor. Well the circumstances are these. The authors of this Canon were Catholic & wise bishops, the place Granata a city in Spain, which had then many infidels, that thought Christians to commit idolatry by having of Images. The time when they feared persecution, as appeareth by the 59 & 60. Canon. But if we believe Garanza, your author, it was about the time of the Nicene council, when no persecution could be feared; & therefore your cause which you make the fourth circumstance, is forged, that they feared lest those images should have been despitefully abused by the Pagans, when they were fled: neither are you able to prove it, & therefore in the end you conclude, it was but a synod of 19 Bishops, whose decree was undone by the second Nicen general council, the Council at Frankford. etc. That the council of Frankfort that condemned the council of Nice, he only denieth that it did so, but answereth not the authority cited by M. Calfhill. The book of Carolus Magnus against images he condemneth for a forged tale, although ancient writers make mention of it, & the style of the book doth argue the it was written in that time, if not by the Emperor, yet by his appointment. But seeing he referreth us to the confutation of the Apology fol. 328. I will refer the readers to the defence of the Apology for the same matter.  
After this, he spendeth certain leaves, in defending the credit of Irenee the idolatrous Empress, and in defacing those Emperors that were enemies to images, wherein he hath the idolatrous historians favourable, not sparing to report what so ever their malicious enemies could invent, to slander them. But hereof I have written somewhat in mine answer to D. Sanders book of images cap. 4. or 3. & cap. 15. or. 14.  
Now cometh in S. Ambrose extolling the cross: Ser. 56. As a Church cannot stand without a cross, so a ship is weak without a mast. For by and by the devil doth disquiet it, and the wind doth squat it, but when the sign of the cross is set up, by and by both the iniquity of the devil is beaten back, and the tempest of wind is appeased. Here Martial triumpheth against M. Calfhil, that the author speaketh not of a cross beam in the Church, but of the sign of the cross. But he lieth shamefully, for this writer speaketh not of a material Church, Chappel, or Oratory, but of the congregation of Christ, in which the cross and passion of Christ hath the same force that the mast in a ship, which is made after the figure of the cross, and the plough beam in tillage etc. His other sentence Serm. 55. is yet more plain against him, Arbour enim quaedam in navi est crux in ecclesia, quae inter totius saeculi blanda & perniciosa naufragia incolumis sola servatur. In hac ergo navi quisquis aut arbori crucis se religauerie, aut aures suas scripturit divinis clauserit, dulcem procellam luxuriae non timebit. For the cross in the Church is as it were a certain tree in a ship, which among the flattering & pernicious shipwrecks of the whole world alone is preserved in safety. In this ship therefore who so ever shall either bind himself to y● tree of the cross, or stop his ears with the holy Scriptures, he shall not fear the sweet storm of luxuriousness, etc. He alludeth to the fable of Ulysses which tied himself to the mast, and stopped his ears with wax, that he might not hear the song of the Mermaids. This sentence (whereof Martial durst cite but three or four words) declareth that his author maketh nothing for the title of this Article of erecting the cross in Churches, Chapels etc. And yet when all is done, I must confess 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 Milan.  
Concerning the tale that you father upon sir Ambrose Cave, of an Island by Rhodes, and a road there where no anchor nor cable will hold the ship, unless the mariner make the sign of the cross over the place where he casteth anchor: It may be, he reported it as a fond persuasion of superstitious people, but I think no that he gave any credit to it. Popery is full of such tales. But why do you charge M. Calfhil with a lie, for saying that in the Popish catholic time, the church of Paul's was twice burned within 50. years space. Marry, because it was not on Corpus Christie eve, nor the Communion table was burned with all the four isles within the compass of three or four hours, therefore it was no the like plague. But how often hath the sacrament of the altar, (your God) been burned, when Churches were fired? More things, in which there is any diversity, shall be like, by Marshal's logic or law, I can not tell whether it is, by which he condemneth M. Calfhil for a liar.  
Touching Lactantius, he reasoneth to and fro of his authority himself, and yet chargeth M. Calfhil for so doing. Our judgement of Lactantius, as of all old writers is this, that what so ever they speak contrary to the truth of the holy Scriptures, we may boldly reject it; what so ever they say agreeable unto them, we do willingly admit it. The chief matter touching this article, is this, that certain verses are ascribed to Lactantius, exhorting men to worship the cross, which verses M. Calfhil denieth to have been written by Lactantius. First because S. Jerome in the Catalogue of his works, maketh no mention of them: but they might be unknown to Jerome, saith Martial. It is not like they could be unknown to Jerome, and known to Martial. Secondly, because he speaketh of Churches, that were scarcely builded in Lactantius time, but Martial proveth, that Christians had churches even in the Apostles time, and ever since, as though any man doth doubt of that, but of such churches as this versifier speaketh of. Thirdly, because the doctrine of these verses, concerning images, is contrary to that Lactantius taught, and was generally received in his days. martial replieth, 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 use of religion, and his arguments are general against all images in religion. Finally, it is also manifest, that his versifier making a Poetical prosopopeia, induceth Christ hanging upon the cross, and speaking to him that cometh into the Church, and therefore no argument of cross or image may be rightly gathered out of the poem, who so ever was the author. For immediately after this verse, Flecte genu, lignúmque crucis venerabile adora, followeth: Flebilis innocuo terrámque cruore madentem, o'er petens humilis, lachrymis suffunde subortis. Bow thy knee, worship the venerable wood of the cross, And lamentably kissing with humble mouth the earth which is moist with mine innocent blood, wash it over with tears flowing out. By these verses then Martial may as well prove, that the Church floor was moist with the blood of Christ, as that there was a cross in the Church.  
To Lactantius he joineth Augustine, De Sanctis Hom. 19 saying. that Churches are dedicated with the sign of the cross, where he not only changed the word charactere into mysterio, but also translated the word mysterio, by the sign: where he confesseth his fault, he may be pardoned, but where he justifieth mysterio and sign● to be all one, he showeth himself as he is. But how will he persuade us, that those Homilies de tempore and de Sanctis, of which some one is ascribed to so many authors, were either written by Augustine, or by any of those times, the style is so dissonant, that any man learned, and of indifferent judgement, will confess. Although it is not to be denied, but the sign of the cross was superstitiously abused, even in the days of Augustine, and long before Whereas Augustine reporteth of a woman called Innocentia, which had a canker healed in her breast by the sign of the cross, if it were a miracle, it proveth not, that every Church, chapel, and Oratory, should have a cross. Great miracles were done by imposition of hands, yet it followeth not therefore, that every Church must have imposition of hands. Again, not only Cankers, but also Fistulas, tooth ache, and many other diseases have been healed by charms. And yet these charms are not justifiable thereby, much less to be brought into the Church, as wholesome ceremonies and prayers.  
But albeit the cross be no ordinary mean, whereby God useth to conserve health (saith Martial) yet may you not conclude, that he hath not ordained it to remain in the Church, for any remembrance of his death and passion. For think you (saith he) he hath left no more means but the preaching of his word, which every one can hear? Yes, it hath pleased his majesty to ordain by general Counsels the sign of the cross, and images to be a mean to put us in remembrance of Christ's death etc. But seeing the Church flourished 300. years without a general Council, and neither that general Council which was first holden, not three other which followed, make mention of any such matter, where was the ordinance of God by general Counsels for the cross? He will say it had the appointment of the prelate's of the Church. Which? and when? every idle ceremony and ungodly heresy that prevailed had the prelate's of the Church either for the authors or for the approvers. But Christ committed to the prelate's (saith Martial) the charge and government of his Church. Yea sir, to feed them with his word, and not with dumb signs and dead images, which things he hath forbidden.  
Now come we to Paulinus Bish. of Nola, by whom it appeareth that the sign of the cross was set up 1100. years ago, in some churches: but the title of the Article is, that it should be set up in all Churches. But Martial will prove, that it was well done by Paulinus, to set up the sign of the cross in his Church, because he was an holy and learned Bishop, and no Catholic Bishop or general council did find fault with him: for whatsoever any holy & learned father did at any time, and was not controlled of any Catholic father for his doing, was well done, and must be so taken. I deny this mayor, For Augustine was an holy and learned Bishop, which did give the Communion to infants, and thought it necessary for their everlasting salvation: neither was he controlled therefore, yet did he not well, neither was his opinion true. And where Martial taketh upon him the defence of Paulinus, in commending a woman that separated herself from her husband under pretence of religion, he playeth the prattling proctor, picking of quarrels against M. Calfhil, without all honesty or shame, For he feigneth that the fault is alleged, for want of consent of her husband, whereas such separation as he commendeth without consent, is directly contrary to the doctrine of the holy Ghost, 1. Cor. 7. v. 5. Likewise where M. Calfhil nameth a book that the Apostles wrote, Martial saith it was but of Paul's Epistles: where he saith it was laid unto diseases, M. Martial saith it saved a man from drowning, but of these quarrels too much. martial confesseth, that were a Doctor swerveth from scripture, no man ought to follow him. But if Paulinus swerved not from Scripture, when he brought images into the Church, we need not doubt that any man swerved from Scripture, seeing nothing is more plain in all the Scriptures, then forbidding of images and similitudes of any thing to be made or had in any use of religion.  
Where M. Chlfhil answereth to the decree of justinian (that no Church should be builded before the place were consecrated, and a cross set up by the Bishop) that this was a constitution of the external policy, Martial laboureth to prove that it was religious, and yet at length granteth that it was a matter of external policy, whereupon I infer, that it was not of necessity, and so the article is not proved thereby, that every church should &c. But it cometh of great wisdom, that he will defend the time of justinian from ignorance and barbarity, because the civil law was then gathered, and a few learned men were found in the whole world. All this notwithstanding, the Barbarians had overcome a great part of the Empire, and filled the world with ignorance and barbarousness. Against the decree of Valentinian and Theodosius cited out of Crinitus, he hath many quarrels. First against Petrus Crinitus, who was as good a clerk as Martial, Then at the Homily against images, where the Printer calleth him Petrus Erinilus, yet again the Valentinian not being written at large, is mistaken for Valens, where it should be Valentinianus. And if Valens and Theodosius had made such a l●●e, what an oversight was it of Eusebius to suppress it? When Eusebius was dead before any of them were borne, it was a great overfight in Marshal's judgement, to suppress in his story a law made by them, which lived near an hundredth year after him, so that belike he would have Eusebius to write stories of things to come. But concerning that law of Valentinianus and Theodosius, you shall see more in mine answer to D. Sanders book of images. cap. 13. or 12. The rest of this chapter is spent in commending the Church of Rome, whose custom it hath been (saith Martial) these twelve hundredth years, to set the sign of the cross in the Church, and Pope Pius the fourth did it himself of late etc. Concerning the Church of Rome, so long as she continued in true religion, and so far forth as she maintained the truth, as she was greatly commended of ancient writers, whom martial nameth: so now it is to her greater reproach and shame, earum laudum & gloriae degenerem esse, that she is grown out of kind and desert of all such praises: as the Clergy of Rome writing to Cyprian, lib. 2. Epist. 7. To conclude, therefore, there is nothing showed to prove that every Church, Chappel, or Oratory should have a cross, although in the latter and more corrupt times of the Church, it is declared, that some Churches had a cross, and at length grew to a custom in those parts of the world, that every church had one, and was thought necessary that it should have one.   

The fourth Article.  
That the sign of the cross was used in all sacraments etc. 
Martial.   
That it hath been used in the later declining times, 
Fulke.  we will not stand with martial, but that in the best and purest age of the Church, by the Apostles and their immediate successors it was used, or allowed before the Valentinian heretics, I affirm, that martial can not prove by any ancient authentical writer, between the Apostles and Irenaeus. Wherefore Master Calfhil answereth well, that the ceremony once taken up of good intent, being grown into so horrible abuse, is justly refused of us. martial will know what our vocation is, as though we were not able to prove our calling both before God and men. Our Synods he refuseth, because no Council can be kept without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, in which point as many of Papists are against him, which hold that even a general Council may be kept to depose an evil Pope, against his will: so he mistaketh the Tripartite history and julian Bishop of Rome, where they speak of general Counsels and Synods, to determine of matters of faith, from which the Bishop of Rome while he was a Bishop, was not to be excluded, because those cases touch all Bishops, dreaming that they speak of all Counsels. But long after their times, it was practised as lawful, for Kings and Bishops of several provinces, to gather and hold provincial synods, for the state of their several Churches, without the consent or knowledge of the Bishop of Rome. In which some things have been determined against the will of the Bishop of Rome, as in the counsels of Carthage and Africa, and in general Counsels also, as in that of Chalcedon, Constantinople the 5. & 6. the Counsels of Constans and Basil. But signing with the cross 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 how will S. Basil persuade us of that, when we find it not in their writings: it is more safe therefore, to follow his counsel in his short definitions q. 1. where he affirmeth, that it is not lawful for any man to permit himself to do or say any thing without the testimony of the holy scriptures. And this we will hold even with Basils' good leave, against all pretended traditions of the Apostles what so ever. We Know the Apostle willeth us to hold the traditions, either learned by his Epistles, or by his Sermons. But what he delivered in his sermons, we can not tell, but by his Epistles. Yes, saith Martial, the church telleth you of the sign of the cross, but seeing the church telleth us of other things, which are left and forsaken, avouching them likewise to be traditions of the Apostles, which ought not to have been so given over, if they had been Apostolic traditions in deed, we see no cause why we may not refuse these, aswell as those, having no ground of certainty for apostolic traditions, but only the Apostolic writings. Tertullian counteth the tasting of milk & honey after baptism, for an Apostolic tradition, because it was a ceremony in his time, as well as crossing, the one was left long ago, why may not the other be forsaken that hath no better ground, & hath been worse abused? Concerning the tale of Probianus, which followeth next after this discourse, I will refer the reader to mine answer to D. Sand. book against images, c1s. 13. or 12. after the error of his print, where Calfhil thinketh it not meet, that should be restrained to that whereof there is no precept in scripture, nor they themselves yield lawful cause, Marti. telleth him, that he must be restrained, if he will be good Christian. For there is no precept in express scripture to believe three persons & one God in the blessed Trinity, the equality of substance of Christ with his father in his godhead etc. The pertual virginity of Marie, the keeping of the Sunday, the sacrament receiving fasting, the baptism of infants etc. you see what an Atheist he is, that can find no more certainty in the scriptures, for the blessed Trinity, then for S. Mary's virginity: for the godhead of Christ, then for receiving the Communion before other meats. If Papists have no ground to their faith out of the scriptures, yet we can prove what so ever is necessary for us to believe. It he dally upon the word express scripture, either he answereth not to the same thing whereof he is demanded, or else he knoweth not that an argument rightly concluded out of holy scripture, is as good as the very words of the scripture, as when I say, if Peter believed & was baptised ergo, he was saved, is as true, as these words, whosoever believeth & is baptised, shall be saved. To the second demand, whether the ancient fathers did attribute such virtue to the wagging of a finger, that the holy Ghost could be called down, & the devil driven away by it. Mart. answereth: it is most evident, that as soon as prayer is duly made, & the sign of the cross made, the holy Ghost according to the promise of Christ, cometh down & sanctifieth etc. and the devil is driven away. This is Mart. evidence, other reason he bringeth If he refer the promise and coming of the holy Ghost to prayer, he playeth the palterer, that being demanded of the cross, answereth of prayer. Otherwise, let him show what promise Christ hath made to the sign of the cross, or to prayer with the sign of the cross, more than without it. If he can not, you may easily see his poverty. To the third, whether they would have refused the Church and sacraments for want of a cross, He believeth verily they would not: for the sacraments lacketh not the virtue if the sign of the cross be omitted: yet the fault is great when the tradition of the Apostles is wilfully rejected. Whether it be like they delivered any needless or unprofitable ceremony, let wise men judge. After this, followeth a long and foolish dialogism, about the interpretation of Cyprians words. What so ever the ministers of the sacraments be, what so ever the hands are that dip those that come to baptism, what so ever the breast is, out of which the holy words proceed, the authority of operation giveth effect to all sacraments in the figure of the cross, and the name which is above all names, being called upon, by dispensers of the sacraments doth all. Martial so scanneth these words, as though M. Calfhil knew not the difference between the power of God, and the ministery of man in the sacraments, which Cyprian doth plainly distinguish in these words. But to the purpose, Cyprian seemeth to make the figure of the cross a mean by which God worketh in the sacraments. But in deed he meaneth, that all sacraments take their effect of the passion of Christ, as a bare sign and token whereof they used the figure of the cross, and not as a mean whereby God worketh, seeing it is confessed by Martial, that the sacraments if the sign of the cross be omitted lack not their virtue. another foolish brabble and usherlike construing, he maketh of Cyprians words, de baptismo Verborum solemnitas & sacri invocatio nominis, & signa attributa institutionibus Apostolicis sacerdotum ministerijs visibile sacramentum celebrant. For reproving Master Calfhil for translating signa attributa institutionibus apostolicis, signs attributed to the institutions of the Apostles, he teacheth him to construe signs attributed by the Apostolical institutions, through the ministery of the priests. Wherein I marvel that such an ancient student, will now suffer the word attributa, to go without a dative case, which I think he would not have done in his pettite school at Winchester. But if I might be bold under the correction of such a grounded grammarian, to construe the lesson over again, I would give the Latin this English. The solemnity of words and invocation of the holy name, and the signs appointed by the institutions of the Apostles, for the ministery of the priests, doth make the visible sacrament. And what be those signs? By M. Marshal's leave, the elements, as water, bread and wine. But then M. Grindal (whom I laugh to see this wise Dialogue maker, to bring in swearing, once or twice in this devised talk, as though out Bishops used that vein, as commonly as Popish prelates) M. Grindal I say, must send me to Saint Anthony's school, because the elements of the sacraments be of Christ's own institution, and not of his Apostles, wherefore those signs must be other goodly ceremonies, and the sign of the cross must not be lest. But if Martial ever were a scholar in that school, or any other of any value, he might have learned long ago, that institutio signifieth not only the first beginning of an ordinance, but also a teaching or doctrine: and so doth Cyprian mean, that by the doctrine of the Apostles, the Priests are appointed to use those signs, which if Marshal's Vshership will not admit, Cyprian in telling what maketh the visible sacrament, hath left out the principal part thereof, namely the element, and that which in deed in it is only visible, for the solemnity of words and invocation are audible rather then visible. But in this foolish Dialogue is cited justinus Apol. 2. to prove that the old Fathers used the sign of the cross, in all sacraments. justinus Martyr (saith he in the place of M. Grindal) talking of the cross, biddeth us view in our minds, and consider with reason, all things that are in the world, and see whether sine haec figura administrentur, they may be done without this sign. How like it is that M. G. should say, justinus biddeth us, when he biddeth the Gentiles, I leave to speak of. But that he speaketh of our sacraments, how will Martial prove? When both he speaketh to the Heathen, and of Heathenish customs and ceremonies, or else civil and natural matters. As of sailing, ploughing, digging and all handy crafts, whose tools had some figure of the cross, in which the Gentiles did so fondly abhor and despise Christ for it. Whereas it was to be found even in the shape of man, in the trophies and standards of their Emperor, in the consecration of their dead emperors images, whom they worshipped as Gods. For which causes justinus thought it unreasonable, that they should contemn Christ for his crosses sake. But of using the sign of the cross in all sacraments there is no mention in justinus. That in Chrysostom's time & other more ancient fathers, the sign of the cross was used at the celebration of the sacraments, M. Calfhil granteth as a ceremony, & you confess, It is but a ceremony, and that our sacraments lacking the sign of the cross, and that usual ceremony be perfect notwithstanding. And yet you exclaim against us for omitting a needless ceremony, where we see it hath been turned from that indifferent usage of the forefathers, into an idolatrous custom & opinion of necessity. The credit of Dionysius for so ancient a scholar 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 authority, for honey, milk, wine, to be restored in baptism, and the communion to be given to children, as you have for the cross: you answer, these were altered by the Church of Rome, which hath authority so to do, the cross still remaineth: but mark what you say, were these traditions of the Apostles? if you say no, the like will I say of the cross, for the same authority commendeth them all a like, for traditions of the Apostles. Well if they were traditions of the Apostles by the holy Ghost, which you hold to be of equal authority with that scriptures, & the Church of Rome hath abolished the one, why may she not abolish the other? so that your answer containeth manifest blasphemy. To fortify your traditions, you allege that jesus did many things which are not written, etc. but you leave of that which followeth, but these are written, that you might believe, & in believing have eternal life. Io. 20. & yet S. john speaketh of miracles, not of ceremonies to be used in baptism, whereunto you apply it. But jesus himself saith, he hath many things to say that the apostles could not then bear, etc. joan. 16. And you would know in what work of the Apostles those things are written, yea you would have the Chapter noted. Pleaseth it you to look yourself in the Acts of the Apostles, and in their Epistles, etc. And you shall find, that the scriptures will instruct the man of God unto all good works, & make him wise unto salvation, if these will not serve your turn, seek where you will, & find the devil & eternal damnation. But I pray you, could not the apostles bear that hearing of the sign of the cross, of salt, oil, spittle in baptism, were these such hard lessons to learn, or heavy to bear? if you think they were, I envy not unto you so wise a thought. But you will teach us how we shall know, that these are traditions of the apostles, to this inquire you answer, even as we know the gospels & epistles to be the Canonical scriptures, by authority of the church, which you think sufficient for that purpose. But so do not we, for although we receive the testimony of the Church, yet we have greater authority out of the scriptures of the old Testament, & that spirit by which they were written, being always the same by which we are persuaded that the gospels & epistles are the holy scriptures. Again the universal Church of all times & places giveth witness to those writings, so doth it not to these traditions.  
Therefore we are never the near to know Apostolical traditions, by authority of the Popish church, which ascribeth things manifestly contrary to the word of God and writings of the Apostles, to Apostolic traditions, as Images, half communion, private Mass, etc. After this brabbling of traditions, followeth a long brawl about numbers, which the Papists do superstitiously observe, and of the authority of the seventy interpreters, whose translation if it were extant, no doubt but it were worthy of great reverence, but seeing these questions are fruitless, and impertinent unto the article, I will clearly omit them: Martial returning to prove that the sign of the cross was used in consecrating the body and blood of Christ, findeth himself greatly grieved, that M. Calfhil calleth the Mass the sacrifice of the devil, wherein be so many good things, as the Collets, Gospel, epistle, Gloria in Excelsis, etc. by which reason I might prove a devilish conjuration in which be so many names of God, and good words, to be an holy piece of work. Therefore it is not many good parts abused to make a wicked thing good, that can justify the Mass, which is an hurrible blasphemy against the death and only sacrifice of Christ. But M. Calfhil doth not satisfy him, where he citing out of Albertus Magnus, That Christ did bless the sacrament with a certain sign of his hand, as jacob laid his hands on joseph's sons, and Christ laid his hands upon the children, & lifted up his hands, & blessed his Apostles, etc. asketh why we might not say Christ made a sign of the cross, considering that Chrisostome, Augustine, and Euthymus testify, that in their time, the sign of the cross was used in consecration, this question (he saith) is not soluted. This is soon answered, because laying on of hands, and lifting up of hands, which be sometime used in blessing, doth not prove a crossing with the finger: of ones hand, as the Papists use, and because the Evangelists which describe all that he then said or did for us to follow, make no mention of any such sign of hand made by him in blessing. The long discourse that followeth of blessing and giving of thanks, is needless, for we know and confess, that as they sometimes signify all one thing, so they differ sometimes: & we confess that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper were blessed, that is to say sanctified and consecrated but not with any sign of hand, which is the matter in question, but with the word of God, and with prayer: not only as bodily meats, but as heavenly and spiritual mysteries, to feed the soul. But it is a sport to see, how Martial when he hath proved that which was not in question, that the bread & wine were blessed & sanctified by Christ, & that they must now be so consecrated by the Church, he runneth away with the sign of the Cross, whereof he hath brought no proof of the use by Christ: saying, There must be consecration by honouring the words of Christ, and calling upon his name, & making the sign of the cross, which manner of consecration the Church learned of Christ, & hath continued ever since: so that we may boldly say with Albertus. He blessed it with a certain sign of his hand. But I pray you sir, where learned you this sign used by Christ? How prove you that it hath been used ever since? It is enough for Martial to say, that all the learning in English Doctors will never be able to prove this assertion of his to be frivolous.  
But seeing he is so Greekish, to teach M. Calfhil to construe Saint Paul's words? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and findeth fault with him for giving the aoristes the signification of the present temps, let him look in his lexicon, where I ween all his Greek is, how he will abide▪ by this saying: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Matthew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Paul, have relation to the bread and wine, and answer to the question whom or what▪ seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no verb transitive, although the Christian writers, as justinus Martyr, hath feigned a passive unto it.  
Again in the saying of Chrysostom Ho. 24. in 1. Cor. Cap. 10. where martial will have us mark that the body of Christ is seen upon the altar, let him & his fellows mark, that if it be none otherwise there, then as it is seen, it is present only to the faith, by whose eye it is seen.  
After this tedious treatise of bleassing and thanksgiving, he cometh to his old petition or principle, that the signing with the cross is a tradition of the Apostles: and angry he is, that he should be called on to prove that it is a tradition of the Apostles, whereof he can find no mention in Ecclesiastical writers before the Valentinian heretics. And whereas Cyprian Ad Panpeium calleth all traditions to the writings & commandment of the Apostles, he crieth out that Cyprian is slandered, because he himself allegeth the tradition of Christ for mingling of water with the wine. If Cyprian break his own rule, who can excuse him? But if he had been urged as much for the necessity of water, as he was for the necessity of wine in the sacrament, he would have better considered of the matter. From this matter he descendeth to prove the number of sacraments to be seven, because matrimony is of some old writers called a sacrament, when they mean not a sacrament in that sense that baptism is a sacrament, but generally a mystery. And because M. Calfhil saith, that sacraments were signs ordained of God to confirm our faith, he will prove that we have no sacraments at all, because baptism if it be ministered to men of years, confirmeth not their faith, for they must have their faith confirmed before they be baptized, & so must they that receive the communion. But when infants be baptized they have no faith but the faith of the Church, & therefore their faith can not be confirmed. Did you ever hear such a filthy hog grunt so beastly of the holy sacraments, that they should be no helps of our father. We believe that infants, although they have no faith when they are baptized, yet have their faith confirmed by their baptism even to their lives end. And that they which come to the Lords ●able with a true faith in God's promises, have the same confirmed by the seal of his word which is that holy sacrament. Martial calleth for scriptures. Among a thousand texts, this one shall serve: Abraham received that sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being uncircumcised, Rom. 4. v. 11. Tell us Martial by thy law, wherefore a seal serveth, if not for confirmation? But what should I talk with them of faith, which as they have none in the promises of God, so they know not what in meaneth.  
To that reason of Master Calfhill, that Matrimony bathe no promise of forgiveness of sins, he answereth, denying that every sacrament hath a promise of forgiveness of sins annexed, and afterward he asketh where hath the supper of our Lord a promise of remission of sins? for sins are forgiven before the sacrament be received. Is this the divinity of Louvain? is the holy supper available neither for confirmation of faith, nor to forgiveness of sins?  
Wherefore saith Christ of the cup? This is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many unto forgiveness of sins. Nay (saith Martial) if there be a remission of sins, then is it a sacrament propitiatory, contrary to your own doctrine. Nothing the sooner, so long as remission of sins be not tied to the work wrought, according to your heresy, but sealed unto the faith of the worthy receiver. Likewise he quarreleth against that reason, that Matrimony conferreth no grace, which is easily proved by this, that Matrimony is good being contracted among gentiles & heathen persons. And whereas he bringeth in the blessing of God to married persons, either they be such as pertain to all men in general, & so prove no grace of marriage in the church, or else to the faithful only, & so pertain to faith & not to marriage: as that the faithful woman shall be saved by bringing forth of children. The question of marriage after divorcement, because it pertaineth not to the Cross I will not meddle with it, M. Calfhill hath said more than Martial can answer.  
Touching the popish sacrament of penance, which martial and not S. Jerome calleth the second table after shipwreck. M. Calfhil hath likewise proved effectually, that it is no sacrament of Christ's Church: Against which, martial bringeth nothing but certain sentences of scripture, to prove how necessary repentance is after men have sinned, to obtain remission of sins. Whereof S. Jerome speaketh, and not of Popish penance, consisting of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, with their blasphemous absolution.  
Concerning extreme unction, that it is no perpetual sacrament of the Church, it is plain by scripture because the gift of healing which was annexed unto the anointing of oil, spoken of in S. james, hath long ago ceased: Wherefore it followeth, that the same ceremony of anointing was temporal, even as the promise of bodily health that was joined to it, was temporal. Finally, touching the Council of Trent, that hath allowed all these for sacraments, how lawful it was, when he that was accused for heresy, should be the only judge, I think martial by his law could discuss if he list. And as for the saveconduit granted to the Protestants, they have learned by the case of I. Hus and Hierom of prague, to trust the faith of Papists, as much as they like their religion. To conclude, there is nothing proved in this article, which pretended, that the cross was always used in the sacraments. And it is confessed, that when it is used, it is but a ceremony, and such as the want thereof taketh not away the effect of the sacraments, wherefore seeing the sacraments are perfect without it, they are not to be condemned, which upon good ground and sufficient authority have refused it.   

The fifth Article.  
That the Apostles & fathers of the primitive Church blessed themselves with the sign of the cross, 
martial.  & counseled all Christian men to do the same, and that in those days a cross was set up in every place convenient for it.  
The first controversy is of the signification of this word benedicere, 
Fulke.  which with martial is all one with signare. For although he find not in the old writers, benedicebant se signo crucis, they did bless themselves with the sign of the cross, yet he findeth signabant se signo crucis, they marked themselves with the sign of the cross, which is all one with him. But not so with us: for there was another use of marking at the first, then for blessing. The Christians among the Pagans, marked themselves with the sign of the cross, in token that they professed him that was crucified. Afterward to put themselves in mind of the death of Christ. These were tolerable uses of an indifferent ceremony. The opinion of blessing with the cross, as M. Calfhil sayeth, was taken (as the term) from superstitious old women. And martial cannot deny, but the term of blessing in that sense, is a new signification of the word, and therefore not used of the ancient fathers, which that he might obscure with brabbling, as his custom is, he repeateth his former jangling of the significations of this word benedicere, and how it sometime signifieth to bless with the hands, as when Christ blessed his Apostles and the children. As though to use a ceremony of lifting up, or laying on of hands, when he blesseth, is to bless with a bare ceremony of the hands, as they do with their cross. Nay, he sayeth, to bless with the cross is as old as jacob, who with his hands across blessed joseph's children. The Papists are wise in their generation, when they would not have unlearned men to read the scriptures. For every child of seven years age, reading the story of jacobs' blessing, will easily perceive, that his laying of his hands overthwart, was not for any blessing with the cross, but because he was to lay his right hand upon the younger, and his left upon the elder, contrary to their father's placing of them, which would have had his elder son preferred. But seeing martial maketh himself so cunning in the significations of benedicere, to bless, which he will not have to say well, or pray for only, etc. but to sanctify. Let him remember, that in his own sense, the Apostle sayeth to the hebrews, cap. 7. ver. 7. that which is less or inferior is blessed of the superior, by which argument, he proveth Melchisedech to be greater than Abraham. If then the Apostles and fathers did bless themselves with the sign of the cross to sanctify themselves, I demand, whether the sign of the cross was greater than the Apostles. For no man will say that the Apostles were greater than themselves. If it were not greater, then surely they were not blessed by it Wherein also the fable of Abdias is convinced, which saith of S. Paul: muniens se signo crucis, arming himself with the sign of the cross. was the sign of the cross stronger than S. Paul? for men arm themselves with harness of defence, which is stronger than themselves. Was not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that universal armour or complete harness, which he exhorteth other men to put on as sufficient to withstand all the assaults of the devil, 
Eph. 6.  sufficient for himself without the sign of the cross But seeing the Apostle there describeth the whole armour of God, whereof the sign of the cross is not piece. It is certain, that it is no armour meet for the defence of a Christian man: wherefore your fabling Abdias, and counterfeit Clement can carry no credit with wise & learned Christians. Nor yet the examples of Antony, Martin, Donatus, & Paula reported of credible writers, yet no Evangelists, which armed themselves with the sign of the cross, doth either force or move us to imitation, further than they had warrant for their doing out of the holy scriptures.  
Where M. Calfhill sayeth, that the devil delighted in the sign of the cross, & feigned himself to be afraid of it, that the heremit might run to that sorry succour, and men put more affiance in it. He meaneth that the devil delighted in the superstitious opinion of it: for otherwise he doth neither fear nor love the sign of the cross of itself: for if it had been so terrible to the devil as Martial and others do think, Saint Paul would not have left it out of the complete harness of God, whereby all the deceits & fiery darts of the devil are withstood.  
And although the elder and better age used and received that sign tolerably, yet considering the shameful abuse thereof, it ought now of right & conscience to be condemned, as M. Calfhill sayeth. But martial will none of that, for things good of their own nature, must not be taken away not condemned for the abuse. Very true, but who will grant him, that the sign of the cross is good of itself? It is as much as may be borne, to grant it to be a thing indifferent. And whereas Martial will acknowledge none abuse of that sign, what else should we say, but who is so blind as he that will not see? Concerning the authority of the Epistle of Epiphanius translated by S. Jerome, & his fact in rending a vail wherein was painted an image, as it were of Christ, or some saint, etc. I will refer the reader to mine answer to D. Sanders book of images, Cap. 4. or according to the error of his print, Cap. 3. where he shall see all Marshal's cavils shaken of, except one, which I think no man ever espied before this wily lawyer, and that is of the words, quasi, having an image as it were of Christ or some saint, but not an image of Christ or of some saint in deed, for than he would not have rend it, but perhaps in was an image of jupiter, or Hercules, etc. But under correction of Master Usher, this is but a quasy argument that is grounded upon quasi, as though it should signify always a thing that is not true, but as it were so & yet not so. For Cicero that knew the nature of the word quasi as well as Martial, useth it otherwise, Illos qui oina incer●● dicunt, quasi desperatos aliquos relinquamus. As for them that say: all things are uncertain let us leave, as men past hope. Will martial say they were not past hope in deed? S. Mark sayeth, that Christ did teach quasi potestatem habens, 
Mar. 1.  as one that had authority, will he say he had not authority in deed. 
john. 1.  S. john saith of Christ, who have seen his glory, quasi unigeniti, as the glory of the only begotten son of God. Let martial say with the Arrians, he was but quasi unigenitus, as it were the only begotten son of God, and not he in deed.  
Again, he sayeth, Cùm fecisset quasi flagellum, when he had made as it were a scourge, master Usher will construe it so, that was not a scourge in deed, because he sayeth, as it were a scourge. But martial will still urge the fact of Paula in worshipping the cross of Christ, until it be showed out of Epiphanius by better evidence than yet is showed, that he would have no cross, no crucifix, nor image in the Church. A man would think this were sufficient evidence, when he sayeth: Cùm ergo hoc vidissem in ecclesia Christi, contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, etc. Wherefore, when I saw this, that in the Church of Christ did hang an image of a man, contrary to the authority of the scriptures, I rend it, etc. Further evidence out of Epiphanius you may see in the place before cited.  
martial would have us make a Calendar of Christian men, that refused to bless themselves with the cross, which were 〈◊〉 infinite matter, seeing from the Apostles unto the Valentinian heretics it is not read, that any such estimation was of the cross, that it should be any blessing or confirmation. Master calfhil's rule, that we must live not after examples but after laws, meaning, not follow what soever hath been done by good men, but whatsoever was well done, according to the law of God, martial rejecteth upon vain, foolish, and frivolous reasons, as that some examples are to be followed, that the law serveth not for a just man, that custom must be followed where law faileth, etc. Beside that he slandereth Luther, as one that would have all laws and orders of Princes put away. Again, whereas M. Calfhill showeth that the fathers taught other things more oft & more earnestly than the use of the cross. As that it was a wickedness to fast on Sunday, or to pray on our knees, beside the oblations on birthdayes, milk, and honey, with the communion given to infants, etc. martial answereth, these are abrogated by the church: this is not. But seeing none of them hath been in worse abuse than this custom of crossing, this aught to be abrogated of every church, as well as those. But whereas martial compareth the doctrine of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11. for covering or uncovering of men & women's heads, and the decree of the Apostles for blood and strangled, Act. 15. with those abrogated customs, he doth very lewdly, for beside that the authority of the one is certain, the other uncertain, & of some forged: the doctrine of S. Paul as he there delivereth it, is perpetual, & the decree of the Apostles was never meant of them, but to be temporal, for avoiding offence of the jews. As touching the credit of the old writers who had all their errors, we like well the council of Vincentius Lyrinensis, that we should still have recourse for trial, to the most ancient, in which we must needs account the writings of the Apostles, both of most antiquity and of greatest authority. Wherefore seeing the manner of blessing with the cross is not found either in the writings of the Apostles, or in the most ancient fathers, justinus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, by Vincentius council, we may justly account it for a corrupt custom, crept into the church, either by emulation of heretics, or in contention against the Pagans. But martial slandereth us, and the apology of the church of England, that the chief cause of our separation from the Church of Rome, was the evil life of the governors thereof, and vainly spendeth time to prove out of Cyprian, Augustine, and Caluine, that for that cause we ought not to separate ourselves, whereas we are departed out of Babylon, not so much for the abominable life thereof, as for the corrupt & false doctrine taught therein, by which it is showed to be the Synagogue of sathan, & not the church of Christ. And here Martial hudleth up a number of quotations for the authority of the Pope and of the church of Rome, which seeing they have been all often times answered, and by me also in answer to D. Saunders rock, it were folly here to stand upon them.  
But he will not be counted a falsifier of Tertullian, when of diverse copies 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' judgement of tradition without scripture, in that place is corrupt: for martial himself confesseth, that a tradition unwritten should be reasonable and agreeable to the scriptures, and so he saith, the tradition of blessing with the cross is, because the Apostles by the holy ghost delivered it. But who shall assure us thereof? Tertullian & Basil are not sufficient warrant for so worthy a matter, seeing S. Paul leaveth it out of the universal armour of God. But where M. Calfhill distinguisheth traditions into some necessary, as necessarily inferred of the scripture, some contrary to the word, and some indifferent, Martial like an impudent Ass, calleth on him to show in what scripture, doctor, or council he findeth this distinction of traditions. As though a man might not make a true distinction in disputation, but the same must be found in so many words, in scripture, doctor, or council, when he himself cannot deny, but the distinction is true, & every part to be found in the scriptures, doctors & counsels. But the examples please him not, for the covering of women, and their silence in the church are taught in express words of scripture, and therefore are not necessarily inferred of scripture. Therefore there is one lie, quod martial. Who would think such a block worthy of answer? which thinketh a truth may not be inferred of the express words of scripture, when of nothing it can be better inferred. Again, he calleth it another lie, that S. Paul proveth his tradition by the scripture, for he bringeth no text nor sentence of scripture to prove that women should be covered in the church. But martial doth not only belie M. Calfhill, but also slander S. Paul, seeing he allegeth out of Genesis, both that the man is the image & glory of God, & that the woman was made for man.  
The examples of the second sort, as Latin service, worshipping of images etc. martial will not allow, but the scripture is plain, to them that have eyes, and be not like the images whom they worship.  
Again he liketh not that there should be any limitation in observing traditions of the church in things indifferent, as if cases of necessity & of offence might not make a limitation without contempt of the church's authority. But he will learn, in which kind of traditions we place the signing with the cross, & the rest named by Basil. I answer, that marking with the cross in some respect, as it was first used of the old fathers, is of the third kind, but as it is used of you Papists, for a blessing & sanctifying, of the second kind. If it be told him, that the fathers builded some straw & wood as well as gold & silver, he saith those words were meant of manners & not of doctrine, wherein he showeth himself a profound student in S. Paul's Epistles. Yet if the fathers have any private opinions, or that some bastard books be entitled to them, yet will he follow the rule of S. Basil, Hom. con. Sabel. Dominus, etc. Our Lord hath so taught, the Apostles have preached, the fathers have observed, the martyrs have confirmed, It shall suffice to say, I have been so taught? I would he would or could follow this council, but he leaveth out all the rest, & taketh but the tail: We have been so taught.  
But if he will have us to allow blessing with the cross, let him begin with the head, and show where our Lord hath taught it, the Apostles preached it, and so forth continue his gradation to the end. But hitherto he hath been hammering of tags to his two taglesse points, as M. Calfhil nameth them, and now he cometh to work upon his third point: that a cross was set up in every place. And first he goeth to work with the authority of Martialis, one of the seventy two disciples of Christ, which was as surely a disciple of Christ, as a kinsman of his. Of whose credit I have spoken before, & therefore will not here repeat it.  
Whereas he is accused of falsifying of Athanasius, he coloureth the matter by following two or three corrupt prints, wilfully refusing the true edition & best reform according to the most ancient written copies. His leaving out of words material, which he cannot excuse by the print, he defendeth by his written copy, and layeth the fault on the printer. Better a bad excuse than none at all, lawyers have many such shifts.  
But the place is question. 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, ut 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 we believers make crosses after the image of the cross, but we make no figures of the holy spear, or of the reed, or of the sponge, whereas yet these are as holy as the cross itself? The answer. We make in deed the figure of the cross by putting two pieces of wood together, that if any of the infidels reprehend that in us that we worship wood, we may by separating the two pieces of wood and breaking the form of the cross, account them as unprofitable pieces of wood, and persuade the infidel, that we worship not wood, but that we worship the type of the cross: but in the spear, or sponge, or reed, we can neither do not show this.  
Here martial observeth, that all Christian men made crosses, yet can he not prove that they did set these crosses in the church: but that they used 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 observe, that seeing they made no images of the reed, sponge, spear, etc. they made no images of Christ's passion, which the Papists account so profitable.  
Secondly, martial urgeth, that they worshipped the type of the cross, which Master Calfhill sayeth is not the figure, but the thing represented by the cross. And verily the gentiles should have as great cause to reprehend them for worshipping the shape of a creature▪ as for worshipping the creature itself. Wherefore, except martial will say, the Christians made a fond excuse, let him not play the fool so magnifically, in cavilling upon Master calfhil's interpretation, when he cannot otherwise reasonably defend the author's meaning.  
Finally, let martial remember that the spear, sponge, & reed, be as holy as the cross itself, & therefore in respect of no holiness thereof the cross was made rather than the rest, but because the form thereof being easily broken in two sticks, the gentiles might acknowledge, that the Christians made the cross neither for the wood, nor for the fashion, but for a remembrance of Christ crucified, whom they worshipped.  
From the cross he digres●eth a while to the marriage of vowed priests, complaining that Innocentius & Siricius, pope's of Rome are slandered, where they are said to take marriage for a satisfying of lusts of the flesh, where they speak only of the marriage of Priests that had vowed to live unmarried, which is false, for they speak of Priests that were married, lying with their own wives. Plurimos enim sacerdotes atque Levitas post longa consecrationis suae tempora tam de coniugibus proprijs quàm etiam de ●urpi coitu sobolem didicimus procreasse. For we have learned that many Priests of Christ and levites long time after their consecration have begotten children, as well of their own wives, as of filthy copulation. Thus do they account both faults alike. Again, the reasons they bring, are such as concern marriage generally: That they which be in the flesh can not please God etc. read the Epistle of Syricius ad Himerium Tarraconen▪ & Innocentius ad Victricium, which are all one word for word, concerning this matter. But where martial taketh upon him to charge us with a statute in force against the marriage of Priests in England, vnrepealed, he is misconceived. For we have a clause of a statute in force, that all marriages lawful by the laws of God, shall be accounted lawful by the laws of the realm. So long therefore as the marriage of Priests may be approved by the law of God, there is no danger in the law of the realm. Concerning the filthy lives of the Popish Clergy, it is needless to speak, being so well known in the world, & yet it is not their wicked life that separateth us from their Synagogue, but their heretical doctrine. But returning again to the cross, he burdeneth M. Calfhil with a lie, because he said, that Martial having named houses, markets, wildernesses, highways, seas, ships, Garments, parlours, walls, windows, armour, etc. where the cross should be, nameth not the Church, whereas a little before, he cited out of Chrysostom, that it was used in the holy table at the holy mysteries. But Chrysostom saith not, that the cross was erected, and set up or painted in any Church, although he say, the figure thereof was used. Wherefore here is no lie proved. Touching the saying cited out of Augustine Serm. 130. de tempore, although the authority is not greatly to be regarded of those Sermons, yet admit it were Augustine's in deed, M. Calfhil saith truly, that he speaketh neither of Marshal's material nor mystical cross, but of the death of Christ, and the cross whereon he suffered, as all the discourse of that Sermon declareth: Before the cross was a name of condemnation, now it is made a matter of honour: before is stood in damnation of a curse, now it is set up in occasion of salvation. This now Martial would either craftily or impudently refer to Augustine's time, which is spoken of the time of Christ's passion, when the cross was set up in occasion of salvation, and not an idol thereof in Augustine's time.  
He complaineth, that to an other place of Augustine, wherein mention is made of the sign of the cross, nothing is said, where nothing needeth, when it is confessed, that the sign of the cross was used in his time. And concerning Constantine's cross, we have spoken already sufficiently. To conclude therefore, here is nothing replied in this article, to prove that the Apostles and Fathers of the first Church did bless themselves with the sign of the cross, although the Fathers of latter time used to mark themselves with that sign, and counseled others so to do. Neither is there any thing but the forged new found Martiales Epistle, which is worse than nothing, to prove that the sign of the cross in the first age of the Church was used by the Apostles, or their immediate successors before the days of Valentinus the heretic.   

The sixth Article.  
That divers holy men and women got them little pieces of the cross, 
Martial.  and enclosed them in gold, etc.  
It is confessed, 
Fulke.  that divers made great account to have little pieces of the cross, to enclose them in gold, and hang them about them, but their superstition is reproved both by Hieronyme and Chrysostom. To Jerome Martial answereth, that he reproved not the having of those pieces, but the confidence put in them, as the Pharisees did in their Phylacteries hanged upon their bodies, and not printing the law in their hearts. Be it so, but what accounteth he the having of them? even the straining of a Gnat, Culicem liquantes & camelum deglu●ientes lib. 4. cap. 23. But in other places (saith Martial) he wisheth himself to kiss the wood of the cross. Apol. 3. cont. Ruff. This was a small matter, and yet it was more than having a little piece of the cross, for he speaketh of his visiting the places of the death, burial, and birth of Christ, in which he might take more occasion of meditation upon the mysteries of our redemption. To Chrysostom, which counted it impiety in certain priests, that hanged Gospels about them, and pieces of the coat and hair of Christ, he maketh like answer, alleging out of his Demostr. ad Gentiles, that all the world desired to have the cross, and every man coveted to have a little piece of it, & to enclose it in gold, etc. and whereas M. Calfhil answereth, that this was no praise of the parties, but a practice of the time▪ Marshal replieth, that it was a praise of the parties, repeating what Chrysostom doth write in commendation of the sign of the cross etc. whereas in deed Chrysostom speaking of the matter in question, only showeth what was the affection of Christians to the cross, which was sometime the wood of condemnation. Which affection, although in some it were immoderate, yet Chrysostom's reason against the Gentiles, should not turn him to perpetual shame, (as Martial saith) for he proveth that Christ was God, in that he had wrought so great a conversion unto the faith, that no man was now ashamed of the sign of the cross, which before was a token of condemnation. To conclude, where martial abuseth the words of Christ: Haec oportet facere etc. These things ought to be done, the other not omtted, to prove that the fact of having these pieces of the cross, and enclosing them in gold, was good, he must either bring the law of God, as the Pharisees did for tithing of Mint and Anise, or else we can not be persuaded that such estimation of pieces of wood is good and godly.   

The seventh Article.  
That a cross was borne at the singing or saying of the Litany, etc. 
Martial.   
That processions came not from Gentility to Christians, 
Fulke.  Martial will prove, because processions came from tradition of the Apostles, and that he proveth by a saying of Leo, What so ever is retained of the Church into custom of devotion, cometh of the tradition of the Apostles, and doctrine of the holy Ghost. So is procession etc. but the minor is false, for the Church of Christ, for many hundredth years after Christ, knew no processions. But if processions came from the Gentiles, saith Martial, shall we therefore condemn them? Have we not the liberal sciences, & many politic laws from the Gentiles? as though there were one reason of religion, and politic laws or liberal arts: the one we are forbidden to learn of the Gentiles, 
Deut. 12.  the other being the gifts of God, we may take them even from the Gentiles. Neither doth Augustine against the Manichees, whom Martial citeth lib. 20. cap. 23. Con. Faust. speak of any heathenish ceremonies received in Christian religion, but of such things▪ as we must have common with them, like the sun and the air, as meat, drink, apparel, houses, etc.  
Whether processions came from the montanists or Arrians, certain it is, they came not from Christ nor his Apostles. Tertullian a Montanist maketh mention of certain stations, but I suppose they were no processions but standings. The miracle of water turned into oil, to serve for light in the Church, reported by Eusebius, I marvel to what end Martial bringeth forth, and counteth that it was an hundredth years before the heresy of Arrius. The Litany or supplication prescribed by the Council of Ments, Martial saith the Papists do observe, for they ride not in the Rogationweeke, nor wear their copes. But how observe they, that the Canon commandeth them, to go barefooted in sackcloth and ashes? The Council of Orleans anno. 515. calleth these Litanies rogations, but of procession or going abroad, it speaketh nothing. S. Ambrose in deed is ancienter than this Council, but whether that Commentary upon the Epistles, that goeth under his name, were of his writing, it is not agreed among learned men, at least wise, there be divers additions, and the written copies vary. Besides that the word whereupon he buildeth dies pr●cessi●nis both in written and printed copies, is dies purgationis, the days of a woman's purification, or if algates he will have it processionis, as some printed books have, yet the very circumstance of the place will prove that it is the days of a woman's going forth after her childbirth, and therefore no procession after the cross.  
And if Agapetus did not devise processions first, as M. Calfhil saith; your own Canon law lieth, and not he, the cond. d. 1. Agapitus, as your author Garanza citeth it. But to come near unto the article. Sozomenus lib. ●. ca 8. showeth, that the Arrians at Constantinople began a kind of procession, with singing of Psalms by course, which john Chrysostom, fearing lest any godly men should be seduced by them, took up the same fashion, & so pasted the Arrians in number & processu & going forward. For silver standards of the cross, with burning wax 〈◊〉 went before them. This place showeth, how godly men took upfond ceremonies in emulation of heretics. But now concerning these silver standards in form of the cross, which Socrates li. 6. ca 8. showeth, did serve to carry wax candles or torches, burning upon them, to give the people light in the night season, for then their processions were in the night, martial is as mad as a march hare, that they should be counted no better than candlesticks or cresset staves: and yet when he hath prated what he can, for that principal use they served, although it may be that Chrysostom had some superstitious fantasy in the forms also of the cross, which he devised to be as the standards for the Catholic army to follow: so the same cross staves, served both for candlesticks and standards: how soever it was, this procession differed much from our Popish processions, in which idols are carried about, and not as candlesticks, but candlesticks before them, with candles light in the day time, & not in the night.  
His surmise, that the silver crosses were set in the Church, because no place is mentioned where they left them when they came home, is foolish. They had common theatres and meeting places more meet for setting up of such candlebearing crosses, then the Churches. The quarrel of the four lies I pass over, let the Reader compare both their Books, and judge whether martial have handled that story with sincerity.  
The council Elibertine forbade candles to be lighted in the day time in the Churchyards, Ergo they forbade them not on the lords table, quod Martial. But why then go you with torches and tapers into the Churchyard, both in procession and at burials. And seeing it was an Heathenish custom to light them in Churches, as well as in Churchyards, they which forbade the one would not have allowed the other. But you light them not as Heathen men, of whom Lactantius speaketh, thinking God to be in darkness, and to have need of light. But Ad signu● latriae demonstrandum to declare a sign of the high service that you own to God, If it be so, why light you them to saints? yea to images? the Gentiles had as good excuses as you. nevertheless you are determined to keep your lights still, as you have record & witness out of Eusebius, Athanasius, etc. In deed there is great reason, because they had candles light in the night you will have them in the day: but of light I wish the reader to look more in my refutation of Rastals' confutation, to the 33. leaf of his book. After this followeth a vain discourse, to prove that we are heretics, because we have departed from the unity of the Church, from the Clergy, from the bishop of Rome, etc. All which is false, for we have not departed from the church of Christ, which is ruled by his word, nor from the Christian Clergy, nor from any godly Bishop of Rome, in any point in which he departed not from the truth: but we are gone out of Babylon, we have forsaken antichrist, and all his merchants, that made sale of men's souls: our prayer in a known tongue, our communion in both kinds, our reverent administration of the lords supper, have the Scripture for their warrant, and the primitive Church for their witness.  
His railing upon Luther, I will not deal withal, God hath advanced Luther as his poor witness above the Pope, the proud antichrist, which maketh all Papists to spirit him. Concerning justinian's constitution, for crosses to be born at the singing of the Litany, it favoureth of the corruption of his time. Such godly constitutions as he made, as well in Ecclesiastical as politic matters, we esteem as the good laws of a foreign prince are to be regarded.  
And at length we come to Augustine the Monk, which coming from Rome, did more hurt in corrupting true religion, then good in planting any religion: And whereas martial saith, if our religion came from Eleutherius, it came from Rome: although it were no shame to confess it came from Rome in those purer times, yet Christian religion came to us even from the Apostles, as witnesseth Gildas the Britain, being planted here in the reign of Tiberius the Emperor. And as for Augustine, although the king Ethelbert & the people were well prepared before his coming, by the Queen and the bishop that attended upon her, yet according to his zeal, he took some pains to make the people receive the doctrine of Christ, although in behaviour he was proud, 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 jerusalem, from whence the Gospel was first preached, his errors and superstition came from Rome. That the bishops of the Britons refused, both his authority and ceremonies, it argueth that Christianity was in this land not subject to the see of Rome. If they refused to join with Augustine in teaching the Saxons, it might be not for that they envied their salvation which were their enemies, but because they would not consent to join in the work with him, which sought to bring them into subjection. Concerning the cruel murder of the Monks of Bangor in Augustine's quarrel, Galfride a Britain imputeth no small part of the fault to Augustine. Bede a Saxon would have him clear of it. But seeing the threatening of Augustine is agreed upon, and the slaughter followed, it is shrewd evidence against him. That Augustine's cross, & painted table differeth from that the Papists now use in procession, Martial counteth it not material, seeing afterward they received other kind of images from Rome: and other kind of Images were then used in Churches, which yet were hard for him to prove, for the Grecians to this day, receive none but painted Images.  
The pretence that Master Calfhil saith, Augustine might have to excuse him to feed the eyes of them that never heard of Christ, with the image of his death, that lending their ears he might instruct their hearts: martial will not admit, or if he did admit it, that it followeth not, that they which have not like pretence may not use like example. Whereas Master Calfhil doth neither absolutely affirm the pretence, nor allow it to be good.  
From this pretence he passeth into a defence of praying to Saints, to justify the Popish Litany, Virgin Marie pray for us, which he denieth to be idolatrous, because some steps, or show of invocation of Saints are found in some old writers. And calleth for Scripture to prove it to be idolatrous, yet refuseth what soever Luther, Caluine, or the Magdeburges have said against it. But by his favour I will use one or two reasons out of scripture to prove it to be idolatrous, to call upon the virgin Marie, or any creature. Saint Paul saith Rom. 10. ver. 14. How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed. By which it is evident, that none ought, nor can in true faith be called upon, but he in whom we believe, and it is idolatry to believe in any but in God only, wherefore it is idolatry to call upon Marie or any creature, but upon God only.  
Again the Apostle 1. Tim. 2. ver. 5. saith there is but one God, and one Mediator of God and men, the man jesus Christ, where the Apostle speaketh not only of redemption, but of prayers, supplications, intercessions etc. which overthroweth your blind distinction of mediator, of intercession, and redemption.  
For keeping the memory of the dead, which Lactantius counteth superstition, you think yourselves clear of it, because Matthew, Peter, and Paul etc. are alive in heaven. But you must remember, that Christ sayeth: Abraham, Isaak, and jacob, were alive to God, but in respect of men they are dead, and therefore those memories are not excused of superstition, according to Lactantius judgement. Further you say, the note, that the material cross is no ensign of CHRIST, hath simple proof. But in deed your assertion, that it should be an ensign of Christ, hath no proof at all. The book of Carolus magnus against images, you imagine to have been written by Caluine, or Illiricus, or some other late protestant: but of the credit and antiquity thereof, I have written against Doctor Sanders book of Images Cap. ultimo. Also concerning the second council of Nice which martial citeth for procession with the cross. Cap 15. or 14.  
That God would not suffer the bones of Moses to be translated, lest they should have been matter of idolatry, he saith it is no cause, why translating of other Saints bodies should not be permitted. Because God will have mercy, upon whom he will have mercy, and be gentle to whom it pleaseth him. Hath not the pottemaker power to make one vessel to honour, and another for reproach? May he not transfer Peter's bones, and let Moses alone? May he not make Paul's body to be honoured, and josephes' obscured, Saint stephan's shrined, and samuel's interred, I think you will not deny?  
These reasons to rehearse, it is a sufficient confutation of them: But for the high estimation of relics, Jerome is of his side, against Vigilantius, whom he calleth a famous heretic. And yet no man condemned him for an heretic but Jerome, who rather raileth on him than reasoneth against him. As for Eusebius, although he speak honourably of the bones of Polycarpus, which the Christians gathered and buried, as the parts of an holy martyrs body, yet he nameth not any worshipping of them, such as the Papists use. But Martial maketh much a do that Master Calfhil alloweth the excuse which the Heathen men made, that they would not deliver the body of Policarpus, lest the Christians should leave Christ, and begin to worship him: saying, it was the instinct of the devil, to deny his body etc. and so to say.  
What then? Although they meant cruelly and slanderously against the true Christians, which could neither forsake Christ nor worship any other. Yet the same answer might be well made to superstitious Papists, who have forsaken Christ and worship men, yea dead bones, and them often not of godly men, nor always of men. That Chrysostom was a great admirer of relics, I showed before, in so much that he would change the kingdom of heaven, for the chain that Saint Paul was bound withal, wherein if he spoke not excessively, let Martial follow him. We esteem the kingdom of heaven more than all the relics that ever were. And yet we allow a reverent laying up of the bodies & bones of the Saints, so it be without superstition and idolatry, as was meant by the ancient fathers, although the contrary followed of their too much zeal and carefulness of such small matters.  
To conclude, you have heard what can be said for the antiquity of processions, and bearing of the cross before them: whether it be an Apostolic tradition, that was first devised by Chrysostom in emulation of heretics, let the reader's judge.   

The eight Article.  
That many strange and wonderful miracles were wrought by the sign of the cross. 
Martial.   
If this article were granted in manner and form as it is set down and meant by the author: 
Fulke.  namely, that God by the sign of the cross hath wrought miracles, yet doth it not follow, that the sign of the cross is now to be used of us, nor that we should repose any confidence therein. By the rod of Moses great miracles were wrought, yet was neither the sign of that rod to be esteemed, nor hope of health to be placed in it, nor the rod itself to be worshipped.  
The Apostles by anointing with oil, 
Mark. 6.  did work great miracles, yet neither the sign of that anointing is of us to be used, nor the oil to be worshipped: wherefore if God to show the virtue of him that was crucified, hath wrought miracles, by the cross, or sign thereof, it followeth not, that the sign is still to be used, or the cross honoured, but he that was crucified. Whereas M. Calfhil said, that miracles are done by the devil and his ministers, although Marshal cannot deny it, yet he saith it followeth not that all miracles, or those of the cross were done by the devil. Whereas M. calfhil's meaning is plain, that we ought not to believe all things that are commended to us by miracles, but to examine all doctrine by the word of God, against which we must believe no miracles, no prophets, no Angels, Gal. 1. But whereas Martial laboboureth to prove, that miracles done by sign of the cross, were done by God, he should first have proved substantially, that miracles were done in deed by the cross, and after proved, by what power they were done. For we may not believe every report of miracles, especially when they are alleged to confirm false doctrine. Let us therefore consider the first miracle which he rehearseth of the cross of Christ, that Helena found: if she found any, for Eusebius that knew Helena, and speaketh much of her commendation, and of her doing at Jerusalem, as I take it, would not have concealed such a notable invention, if any such had been, in his story, and therefore the note in his chronology seemeth to be a late addition. But to the miracle, that the cross was discerned from the other two by a sick Gentlewoman upon whom it was laid, whereupon as soon as it touched her, she recovered. This report of Rustinus seemeth to be uncertain, first because Ambrose sayeth, the cross was known by the title, without speaking of any miracle: secondly, because the report of other writers is, that the miracle was of a dead woman, and some of two dead persons, whereof to see more I refer the reader to mine answer to D. Sanders book of Images cap. 13. or 12. Concerning the rest of the Miracles, reported by Paulinus, Epiphanius, Augustine and others, let them have such credit as their authors deserve, which is not to build faith or doctrine upon them, or their writings, let it be that some were true and wrought by God, yet followeth it not, that all that have been since reported in the Popish Legends were either true or not wrought by the devil: whereabout martial maketh much wrangling, but neither affirmeth nor concludeth any thing universally. None use more crossing then witches and conjurers, the devil seemeth to be afraid to come near them, certain strange works are brought to pass by them Let Martial affirm any virtue included in the cross, or sign thereof absolutely, & then we may deal with him accordingly For while he telleth us what may be done by faith & the sign of the cross, and what God hath done by good men with that sign, it is nothing to the authorizing of that sign, seeing the devil by credulity in wicked men hath done the like by the same sign.  
And this is a true position of M. Calfhil, though martial will not understand it. That it is not a sufficient proof to make a thing good, or to show it to be good, (because he cavilleth like a calf a● the word of making▪) to say that miracles were wrought by it. Martial asketh first, whether the miracles of Christ were not a sufficient proof of his divine power? Where he flieth from the position, which speaketh not of the principal efficient cause, out of a ceremony, a mean, or instrument. More pertinently he asketh of the hem of Christ's coat. Saint Paul's napkins, whether they had not a virtue by his body. I answer no. No more than judas lips that kissed Christ, and Peter's shadow, which could neither be holy, nor efficient of any thing, because it was nothing but the privation of the light by coming between of his body. So I say of coats, napkins, ashes of Martyrs, and sign of the cross, if any miracles were done by means of them, they are not thereby holy, neither have they any virtue in them. The Lord hath given us a general rule to examine all miracles, and miracle workers, by the doctrine they teach. Deut. 13.  
If there arise among you a prophet or dreamer of dreams (and give thee a sign or wonder, and y● sign, & the wonder which he hath told thee, come to pass) if he say let us go after other Gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shall not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments, and hearken unto his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. By this scripture we are taught to examine all miracles, whether they tend to the honour of the only true God and the maintenance of his true worship according to his word: which martial himself in a manner confesseth: saying, that miracles done by heretics are not able to commend a thing. But he findeth great fault with Master Calfhil for coupling the generation of a child in adultery or feeding by stolen bread, 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 means is all one in both.  
Now let us see how he answereth those three reasons of Master Calfhil's, why miracles make not for the cross. And first he answereth to a question, Why the dirt in the street by which Christ wrought a miracle, should not be honoured as well as the cross on the altar? He answereth because the cross was an instrument by which all the world was saved. So was judas, so was Pilate. The second, He saith the cross is a lively representation of Christ's death. Nay a dumb and dead idol which is good for nothing. Abacuc. 2. The third The cross is effectuous ever since. A deed efficient.  
The cross is commanded of God to be made and used by divers Revelations from heaven. Nay by the devil from hell, and yet if Angels from heaven had taught the cross to be made and used as another Gospel, as it is accounted of the Papists, as great as circumcision was of the jews, not preached by the Apostles, not contained in the Scriptures, we might safely accurse them.  
But now to the reasons: the first is: Why should not such external means as Christ and his Apostles used, & scripture mentioneth, be had in administration, rather than the idle device of man, of which there is no lawful precedent. martial answereth, the cross is no idle devise, but a tradition of the Apostles, whereof they have lawful presidents. But seeing no precedent is lawful to build our faith upon, but the holy scriptures, which the Papists have not for their cross, the reason standeth untouched.  
The second reason, If miracles were done by the sign of the cross, yet not only by it, therefore the cross should not only be magnified without the rest. Martial affirmeth that he would not have the cross magnified without the rest, as prayer and faith. How doth he then magnify the cross in julians' story, which was without prayer and faith?  
The third reason. If miracles were done by the cross, yet it should not be had in estimation, except all other things by which miracles were wrought, as the he● of Christ's garment, the spittle and clay, the shadow of Peter and napkins of Paul, were likewise honoured and esteemed. Martial answereth, this is but his assertion, for which he hath neither scripture, council, nor Doctor. As though an argument A paribus, were not good except the conclusion were expressed in Scripture, doctor, or council. Yet he replieth, that the cross is the principal mean, by which miracles have been wrought. But the Scripture is against that, for Christ wrought no miracle by the sign of the cross. Nay I slander him, for he reasoneth not ad idem, but the cross is the chief and principal instrument of our redemption, yet not holier than the spear, the reed, and the sponge, as Athanasius affirmeth Ad Antioch. que. 16. But even the hem, the spittle, and clay, if he had them, Martial would honour, worship & esteem for his sake whose precious body they touched. Then let him worship the sun that touched him with his beams of light, or if that be too far of, let him worship judas lips 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 hindrance of the honour of Christ. Martial to justify her in all things, raileth upon M. Calfhil, for charging her with superstition as though he had been the first that had so written of her, when it is reported of her that she was usque ad superstitionem pia, devout even to superstition. And yet her superstition, appeareth not so great in any thing, as in this supposed invention of the cross.  
The variety in time that is in the witnesses of the invention of the cross, the blasphemous beast is not ashamed to compare with the appearance of variety which is in the Evangelists, where in deed there is none, whereas this discord can not be reconciled. Yet will he not have the tale discredited for the discord in time, as though there were none other discord. The manifest contradiction that is between Ruffinus, saying, Titulus non satis evident●r dominici prodeba● signa patibuli, The title did not show evidently the sign of our lords gibbet. And Ambrose saying, Titulo crux salutaris patuit, by the title the healthful cross was manifestly known. This contradiction I say, he denieth to be any, affirming that a simple Logician would prove it to be none. Thinking that s●tis evidenter evidently enough, would excuse the matter, as though we knew not what patet doth signify, as well as Master usher of Winchester. That a ship would not carry the pieces of the cross that are showed in so many places, he counteth it an impudent lie of Caluine, whom he raileth upon like a ruffian, and slandereth like a devil. Yet Erasmus affirmeth the same in his Peregrinat. relig. erg. And he that will believe neither of them both, let him consider beside so many whole crosses as are showed in steed of that one, and of great boards that are kept in many places as part of it, so many thousand churches & Abbeys as either now show or have showed chips & pieces of it, & he shall not think their report to be in credible. The talk of the nails which were but three at the first, & all bestowed at the time of the invention, yet are now multiplied to 13. or 14. which bewrayeth an horrible impudency in the Popish idolaters. martial refuseth as impertinent, yet will he not confess the forgery, which is a token of a wicked & devilish conscience. Where M. Calfhill sayeth that miracles were not done by the cross to establish a worshipping or having of it, martial requireth proof by scriptures, Counsels or Doctors. I reason thus a paribus out of the scripture, miracles were done by oil, shadow, & other things, not to establish a worshipping or having of them: the like reason is of miracles done by the cross. Beside that the scripture is plentiful in challenging all honour & worship to the author, & not to the means or instruments. Peter and john, means 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 means than the cross ever was in doing of miracles.  
That M. Calfhill sayeth, miracles teach us not to do the like, but to believe the like. martial sayeth, they teach us to do the like if we may: and he proveth it by him that teacheth that alms covereth sin, who thereby teacheth to do alms, etc. Thus the wise man compareth miracles & men together, facts & doctrine; act & possibility, even as right as a rams horn. But how shall we come by this power to work miracles by the sign of the cross? for to assay without assurance of God's power, is to tempt God. Therefore we may no more cross us against devils, because God hath sometime chased them away by the sign, than we may anoint blind men's eyes with clay, to prove if they will see after it, because Christ wrought a miracle by the mean, which as Martial saith, teacheth us to do the like if we may. What estimation Paulinus a superstitious man had in his piece of the cross, which was perhaps a piece of another tree, than ever came in jewry. We have not to follow him in his folly. That miracles wrought of holy men by the sign of the cross, etc. is not a sufficient reason to prove that the figne of the cross should be had, kept, set up, and honoured, I have already proved out of the scripture by the like or equal, & yet it is against reason, when we deny your arguments whose consequence you ought to prove, that we should be driven to prove that they follow not. Where M. Calfhill sayeth, the miracles only ought not, or may not commend a thing, you pick quarrels to him without cause, objecting the miracles of Christ, who took witness not only of his miracles, but also of the holy scriptures. When you have urged the miracle done by the sign of the cross out of Epiphanius, as much as you can, yet proveth it not the honouring and setting up of the sign of the cross in these days, as M. Calfhill telleth you, seeing that we live not among Turks or Saracens, that we need to have any such sign whereby we might be known to be worshippers of Christ. But you would feign learn, what if a Portugal or one of the new converted islands of India, coming by chance into England, of which he never heard before, & seeing neither images nor crosses in church nor street, how he should know in whom we believe. And I would learn of you, what skilleth it, if such a man as never came here, nor ever by any likelihood shall come hither, yet supposed to be driven on a board out of India into England, what skilleth it I say, if he know not in whom we believe, and so depart as wise as he came? What remedy but we must have all places filled with images & crosses, for such a man to know what we hold of, who shallbe never the better thereby, nor the worse if he know not. But you think that happily strangers of Greece, Constantinople, jewry, & India, may come to our coasts, and therefore we ought to have the sign of the cross in churches, chapels, & high ways, to signify of whom we hold. We have not many such strangers, but when they arrive we have books of the holy scripture in Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syrian, Arabike, Sclavonian tongues, in which they may be instructed that are desirous to understand what religion we profess. The Lord God thought it sufficient to have his law written upon great stones, at the entrance into the holy land, to let all strangers know, both whom, & after what manner the people of Israel did honour and serve their God. Deut. 27. 3. But as for images and pillars he utterly forbade them to set up any for any use of religion, Deut. 12. 1. & 16. ver. 2.   

The ninth Article.  
What commodity every Christian man hath or may have by the sign of the Crosse. 
martial.   
Whereas M. Calfhil detesteth the Idolatrous council of Nice the 
Fulke. . 2. by the example of Ambrose, who abhorred the heretical council of Ariminum. Martial willing to justify that rabble of idolaters assembled at Nice, would show great difference, not only between the counsels, but also between him & Ambrose, saying that he was a catholic bishop acknowledging obedience & subjection to the Pope's holiness. As though the bishop of Rome in his time, either required such obedience & subjection, or the Ambrose acknowledged any. But concerning that assembly of Nice, and the authority thereof, how they determined contrary to the word of God, not only in the matter of having and worshipping of images, but also in other things, I refer the reader to mine answer unto M. Sanders book of images, Cap. 15. or 14. Of all that M. Calfhill saith against that council of Nice, Martial chooseth but one saying of Germanus to defend, wherein he picketh two quarrels against M. Calfhil, one that he should misunderstand the saying of Germanus, as though he meant that grace were dispensed by Images, where he saith: an image is a figuring of holy virtue & 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 up in the churches? or what profit may a Christian man have by the sign of the cross? when Martial denieth that any grace is dispensed by images. The second quarrel he picketh is, that M. Calfhill denieth that the virtues of saints can be seen in their images, which could not be seen in their persons. Martial saith: this reason condemneth the scripture as well as images, for the ink and paper hath no mind or sense to hold the power of Christ, & virtue of the Apostles, more than images have. As though the scripture were nothing but ink & paper, or as though that all things that may be learned & understood by hearing, may be discerned by the eye, which conceiveth only bodily shapes of things, & cannot attain to see faith, holiness, virtue, etc. whereof 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 find any images among the Christians, but of Christ & his saints, so that images be wise books, which cannot teach their scholars what or whereof they are, but they must learn of the common opinion how to esteem of them. That images be teachers of pride, avarice, wantonness, etc. as the Prophet sayeth: they are the doctrine of vanity & lies, Abac. 2. martial saith blasphemously, that images give no more occasion of vices, than the holy scriptures, of which some wicked men take occasion of drunkenness, whoredom, usury, etc.  
But seeing the scripture directly & plainly condemneth all these & other vices as occasion is given by them, howsoever any is taken by ungodly persons, whereas images which teach no goodness, but being gorgeously & whorishly decked with gold & precious stones, otherwise then the saints delighted, even 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 martial sayeth, that gilded images make men think of the joys of heaven. O ridiculous fantasy. They may sooner make men think of the vanity of the world, to delight in it. But when the holy ghost by the mouth of his Prophets hath determined that images are the doctrine of lying & vanity, it were lost labour to dispute any longer what good things they can teach, jer. 10. ver. 8. Abac. 2. ver. 18.  
The examples of Ezechias, josias, & Solomon, he saith are brought to no purpose against images amongst Christians. As though it were more lawful for Christians, then for Israelites to commit idolatry. But the Christians (saith he) direct their hearts, & offer their prayers to God, & therefore there is no mistrust of idolatry amongst them. Why martial? have not the Papists in England made & do they not yet still in other places make vows to the images that are in such a place and such a place. Do they not travail thither, and offer up both prayers and sacrifice of candles, money, jewels and other things unto the Images? Have not your idols given answer? have they not wagged their heads and lips, etc. O shameless dogs & blasphemous idolaters. The Lord so deal with you as you know in your own consciences that the ignorant people have made their prayers even to the stocks & stones, thinking them to have a life & divinity in them: and yet you say, there is no mistrust of idolatry, lest you should be driven by example of Ezechias, to destroy & break your images, although otherwise they were not against God's commandment, but even made by his appointment, as the brazen Serpent was. That fond quarrel of yours, that Solomon was not abused by images, but by women, I leave to women to laugh at your vanity, when they read, that by women he was brought to be an idolater, and worshipper of images.  
And every child that readeth Chrysostom Hom. 54. in 8. Tom. can understand, that although occasioned by obstinate jews, yet he speaketh generally of all obstinate minds, whether they be professors of Christianity, or no. Animo desperato etc. There is nothing worse than a desperate mind, although he see signs, although miracles be wrought, yet he standeth still in the self same frowardness. For an obstinate sinner that hath professed Christianity, is no more moved with miracles, and the sign of the cross, than a jew or Pharaoh was. It hath more colour, but not more truth, that Athanasius ascribeth not all effects of conversion of wicked men, etc. wholly and solely to the faith of Christ, when he saith, who hath done this, etc. but the faith of Christ, and sign of the cross? Martial confesseth, that faith is able to do it without the cross, but that God would have the sign of the cross common with faith: if ye ask in what scripture God hath revealed this will, he hath nothing to say. Only he denieth, M. calfhil's exposition of Athanasius, that the sign of the cross was joined to faith, not as a fellow worker, but as a witness & sign of the faith against the Gentiles, because he hath neither scripture, Doctor, nor Council for it. Wherein he lieth shamefully, for the scripture showing, 
Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 28.  the faith only as the instrument by which we apprehend God's mercy & our justification, by which God purifieth our hearts, sufficiently proveth, 
Act. 15. v. 9  that the sign of the cross is no worker in these cases.  
Chrysostom speaking of our conversion, etc. saith: Hom. 14. in Ep. ad Rom. unum hoc etc. We have offered this one only gift of GOD, that we give credit to him, promising us things to come, and by this only way we are saved. This Doctor ascribeth all to faith, therefore nothing to the sign of the cross. Whether the Parisiens' approve Erasmus his censure it is not material, the censure is true, and approved by as wise and well learned as they.  
Touching the next quarrel, that Cyrillus acknowledgeth it no fault of the Christians, to make the sign of the cross at their doors, it is very foolish, as all the rest be, for although he defend it as a good deed, and in his time tolerable, yet if any did worship the wood of the cross, as julian charged them, it was a fault, which Cyrillus doth excuse and seek to cover, but of that matter you may read more in mine answer to D. Sanders book of images, cap. 4. or 3. after the error of his print.  
That S. Basil alloweth images in Churches, he citeth his sermon upon Barlaa●, where he exhorteth painters to set forth the valiant conflicts of the martyr by their art, but of setting up those tables in Churches there is no word. Neither do I perceive 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 advocemus. Exurgite nunc ô praeclari athleticor●m gestorum pictores etc. But let us give place to more magnificent tongues, utterers of his praises. Let us call hither the louder sounding trumpets of learned men. Arise now o ye noble Painters of the valiant acts of champions etc. And it is usual among learned men, to compare good Orators to cunning Painters.  
The counterfeit oration of Athanasius, brought in the idolatrous Council of Nice, we reject as a matter forged by heretics and idolaters. The other Doctor's places, whom he quoteth, are all considered and answered in several places of mine answer to Doctor Sanders book of images before mentioned.  
Whether an image may be made of Christ, which is both God and man, you shall find it more at large entreated, in my said answer cap. 7. or 6.  
That the cross in the time of Cyrillus had none image upon it, it is to be proved by this reason, 〈◊〉 julian would not have omitted to object the worshipping of images unto Christians, which they condemned in the Heathens, if any images had been upon their crosses, which he charged them to have worshipped. Concerning the calling of Churches by the name of Saints, we have spoken already.  
That S. Paul joineth not pictures with scriptures, to be our instruction and comfort, it is an argument of better force than martial hath wit to answer. For if any such instruction, comfort, or commodity had any ways come to Christians by pictures, he would not have written, that the scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, 2. Tim. 3. vers. 17. Articl. 3.   

The tenth Article.  
The adoration and worship of the cross allowed by the ancient Fathers. 
martial.   
Martial thinketh it not reason, 
Fulke.  that he should prove the adoration of the cross by some testimony of scripture, because God hath not so tied himself to the written letter of the scripture, that nothing can be taken for truth, which is not written in scripture. But God hath so tied us to the written letter of the scripture, that we are bound to believe nothing but that which may be proved thereby. The baptism by heretics, the baptism of infants, the authority of the Epistle to the hebrews, of Saint james and Jude, and of all the canonical scriptures, have proof and approbation out of the holy scriputres, and are not received of us by the only tradition and authority of the church, which yet we do not refuse, when it is warranted by the holy scriptures inspired of God.  
The ancient Fathers, Athanasius, Chrysostom, etc. were not exempted from the infirmity of men, that they could so order their terms, as no heretics should take occasion of error by them, when even the terms of holy scripture are often times abused by them, clean contrary to the meaning of the spirit, by which they were written.  
But Martial like a proud fool, disdaineth to be called to define adoration, because every term is not necessary to be defined. And yet I suppose he would claw his poll twice, or ever 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 ways: but that he would walk under a cloud of ambiguity, he should have expressed what manner of adoration he doth speak of. But he is content to take adoration for bowing down, prostrating, putting off the cap, etc. which he thinketh may be done to a senseless image, as well as to the Queen's cloth of estate, her privy seal, etc. as though there were no difference between civil reverence, and religious worship and yet I ween no man doth this honour to those senseless things, although he show reverence to the Prince at the sight of them. The second commandment, Exod. 20 he saith toucheth not Popish images, more than politic images, of Dragons, Eagles, Owls, etc., in arms or other pictures. So good a lawyer he is, that he can not interpret the law according to the matter whereupon it is made, namely religion, but fantasieth, that because images out of the use of religion be not forbidden to be made by a law of religion, therefore they be not forbidden to be made, no not in the use of religion.  
The Prophets, he saith, cry out against the images of Gentiles, and by his leave, against the images of the Israelites also. The image of the brazen Serpent was a figure of Christ, and yet the Prophets condemned, and Ezechias destroyed the worship of the brazen Serpent.  
For the examination of the sentence of Ambrose de ●bitu Theodosij, I refer the reader, to mine answer to D. Saunder of images. cap. 13. or 12.  
Augustine in joan. T. 36. showeth, how reverently the cross was esteemed of the Romans, that now malefactors were no more punished upon it, lest it should be thought, they were honoured, if they suffered that kind of death, which our saviour Christ died. As among us, if rascal thieves should be beheaded at the Tower hill, where only honourable personages use to suffer, it might be said, they were honoved with that kind of execution. Hereupon Martial both foolishly and lewdly dreameth, that if thieves had been put to death upon the cross, the people were likely to have honoured them for the crosses sake.  
Jerome saith, that Paula worshipped lying before the cross, as though she had seen Christ hanging upon the cross, yet saith he not, that she worshipped the cross. Ambrose saith of Helena, that when she found the cross she worshipped the king, & not the tree, for that is an heathenish error, 
De obis,  & a vanity of ungodly persons. wherefore if Jerome, or any other father should teach us to worship the cross as an idol, 
Theod.  we might well say to him, avoid Satan. But Martial, lest he should seem weary of wrangling, scoffeth at M. Cal. for talking of a wooden 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 wooden tree? by Marshal's philosophy, least men should think we talk of watery and fishy men. I had not thought to have named Marshals term of gentlemen's recognizances, of Dragon, Eagles, etc. used in this Article, but that he is so captious, to take exceptions to M. Cal. terms, himself being a lawyer, to trip in a term of law. That service and worship do so concur together, that the one can not be without the other, Martial granteth, although he think M. Cal. can bring no scripture, Doctor, nor Council for it, when he bringeth the saying of Christ. Matt ●. 4. But when he inferreth that we must serve God only, therefore we must worship God only. Mart. bringetl● instance of civil service, & worship of parents. when our saviour Christ speaketh only of religious worship, which the devil required to be given him, not as God, but as the distributer of all the kingdoms of the world, under God.  
That Angels are inferior to Christ, which worship him, 
Heb. 1.  and are not worshipped again, martial saith, it is an addition unto S. Paul, because in all that Epistle we are not forbidden to worship Angels, but where he proved before, that God only is to be worshipped, and the Angel refuseth to be worshipped of john. Apoc. 19 vers. 10. 22. vers. 8. who was not so mad 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 ministering spirits, appointed to minister for them that shall inherit salvation. They are appointed of God to serve, they are not set up to be served and worshipped. Their honour and delight is, that God only may be served and honoured.  
Out of Damascen, he excuseth their worshipping of the cross, for that they worship not the matter, as wood, copper, etc. but the figure, as if it were less idolatry to worship an accident, than a substance.  
The honour which Peter refused to receive of Cornelius, was not such as became the minister of God, and therefore was reproved by Peter, without counterfeiting of humility, the other examples that martial bringeth of civil worship done unto David by Abigail, and Nathan, be clean out of the purpose.  
Concerning the worship of Angels, I have spoken immediately before. Martial slandereth S. john, that he would have worshipped the Angles as God. The conclusion of this argument he thinketh worthy to be hissed at, Angels may not be worshipped, ergo, much less the cross.  
What shall we say to such a Chrysippus, as alloweth not the argument a maioribus? The objection of the Cherubims, the brazen serpent, the oxen, and other images in the Temple, you shall find answered, cap. 5. or. 4. of my confutation of D. Sanders book of images.  
The seventeen authorities brought by M. Calfhil, against the worshipping of images, martial will answer if he can, and first he denieth, that Clemens speaketh of crosses, crucifix, etc. but of the images of the Gentiles. In deed in his days the true Christians had no such images, that he should speak of them. But consider his reasons, that he maketh against the worshipping of heathenish images, and they serve also to condemn the worship of Popish images. The fables of the image of Christ's face, that he gave to Veronica, and sent to Algarus, is good draff for such swine, as delight in idolatry. But martial thinketh, that as our ears call upon us to bow our knees at the name of jesus, so do the eyes at the sight of the crucifix: but he must understand, that we worship not the sound of the name of jesus, rebounding in the air, but the power, the majesty and authority of jesus, we acknowledge and honour, not called upon by the sound of the name of jesus, but by the voyc● of the Gospel, to which the idol of the crucifix hath no resemblance, neither is it a lawful mean, to strirre up our remembrance, because it is forbidden of God.  
Where Saint Paul saith, that Christ was described or painted unto the Galathians, we must either say, that the passion of Christ was painted in a table, or else they carried the image of the cross of Christ rend and torn in their minds. If they might carry an image in their minds, why might they not have it fair painted in a table, speak Master Calf? answer if you can? O mighty martial, withdraw your grim countenance a while, and give him leave to gather his wits together. First he saith, that Saint Paul speaketh of neither of both your images, but of the effect and fruit of the death of Christ, which was so lively described before them, that they ought not to have sought any thing more to the sufficiency of his redemption, and their salvation. Secondly, although the sense of hearing be appointed of God, Rom. 10. to instruct faith, yet he findeth not the sense of seeing, and especially of images, which God hath forbidden, admitted to be a mover to Christian devotion or worship of God: and therefore there is no like reason, that as the story may be carried in remembrance, so the image may be painted and set up in the Church to be worshipped.  
The injunction of kneeling at the communion, intendeth no worship of the bread and wine, more than of the table, the cup, the book, the desk, the wall, etc. before which the people kneel, and therefore it hath nothing like to your kneeling before the cross, which is not only before it, but also to it, to worship it.  
But you think you have an argument to choke us, of the ceremony of swearing upon a book, seeing swearing is a kind of adoration. But sir, we swear not by the book, as you Papists do, we call God only to witness, the book is but an external indifferent ceremony, and that rather civil then ecclesiastical, whereas adoration of GOD by images, is prohibited by God's law. Again, we give no honour at all to the book, as you do to your images.  
That Clemens alloweth the honour given to man, as to the image of GOD, we allow very well, because man is a true image of GOD, your blocks and stocks be all false and counterfeit images.  
To Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus and Tertullian he maketh the same answer, that they speak only of heathenish images. The like he might say, where they speak against adulteries, that they speak of the adulteries of the Heathen, and not of Christians. And the same to Cyprian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, & Athanasius, bringing instance of the civil reverence done to the Prince's seat, and to the Prince himself. And whereas Arnobius saith expressly, & absolutely we worship no crosses, he expoundeth it, we worship them not as Gods. Such expositions may avoid all authorities. The Gentiles which knew the Christians worshipped but one God, did not obiuct worshipping of crosses unto them as Gods.  
Against the authority of Lactar tius, he bringeth in a verse falsely ascribed unto him: Flecte genu lignumque crucis venerabile adora, Bow the knee, and adore the venerable wood of the cross. If Martial allow this verse for authentical authority, how will he justify that he said before, they worshipped not the wood, stone, metal of the cross, but the figure or sign of it? Against Athanasius he obtrudeth that counterfeit sermon of the image of Christ in Berisus, and once again urgeth his forged question 39 add Antiochun, which is quest. 16. as we have set it down at large Articl. 5. having in it no such words as he c●teth: Crucis figuram ex duobus lignis componentes adoramus. We making a figure of the cross of two pieces of wood, do ador● it. To Epiphanius, he answereth, that he speaketh only against women, which offered sacrifice to the virgin Marie, whereas neither it was lawful that women should offer sacrifice, nor that Marie should be made a God. But in deed Epiphanius speaketh against the adoration of dead men, by images. Et mortui qui lem sunt qui adorantur etc. And they truly which are worshipped are dead, but they bring in their images to be worshipped which never lived, for they can not be dead which never lived. He would have 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 necessary, that the chief governor of the church should do sacrifice. The other, that women may not offer external sacrifice, ergo, there is an external sacrifice that men may offer. As good as this, a woman may not circumcise, therefore circumcision is in use to be done by men.  
To be short, Epiphanius calleth the heresy of the Collyridiaus that sacrificed to the virgin Marie Haeresis si●●lachrifica an image making heresy. But least Martial should seem to be beaten clean away from Epiphanius, he citeth him De vitis prophet, alleging a prophecy of Hieremie of the second coming of Christ, which should be Quando gentes universae ligno supplicabunt, when all nations shall make their supplications to wood. Hear is either Marshal's sign of the cross, or an Heathenish error commanded by the prophets, he saith. But if he will boast of the authority of the ancient Epiphanius, he must bring better stuff than this fragment De vita & inter. Proph. Which following so many jewish fables, argueth the later Epiphanius the patron of Images to be the author, rather than the elder of Cyprus. For this prophecy of Hieremie, even as the fable of the Ark swallowed of a stone, etc. savoureth of jewish vanity: And yet if we should admit it as authentical and true, the sense should rather be, that Christ shall come when all nations shall be idolaters or wood-worshippers, then when all nations should worship the sign of the cross, as martial supposeth. For Christ at his second coming shall scarce find faith. Therefore infidelity possessing the greatest part of the world, it is more like all nations should worship wooden idols, than Christ by honouring the sign of his cross.  
To Ambrose, denying that Helena worshipped the wood of the cross, he opposeth a forged saying of Ambrose, cited in the second council of Nice, where lying, forging, and false worshipping, did bear all the sway. Concerning the true testimony of Ambrose, read more in mine answer to D. Sanders book of images Cap. 13. or 12.  
To Jerome, not admitting the civil honour used to be given to the pillars & images of the Emperors, much less adoration of images in religion, he oppeseth his saying in Psalm. 98. affirming that adoration of the cross is allowed by him, whereas that commentary by learned and indifferent judges, Erasmus & Amerbachius, is proved by many arguments to be none of Hieronymes writing, but of one of much later time.  
Thus hath Martial against the true testimonies of the fathers, nothing to oppose, but their counterfeited authorities, and false inscribed writings. Concerning Hieronymes adoration of the mangar and incunabula the cradle of Christ, which Martial so often called the swaddling clothes, I have answered before, that he meaneth no such adoration, as the Papists give unto their images, but a reverent estimation, as of an ancient, holy monument, wherein yet I will not altogether excuse Jerome of superstitious affection, as I will not charge him with idolatry. For Chrysostom's judgement of worshipping the cross, I refer the reader as before, to Cap. 13. or 12. of mine answer to D. Sand. book of images. To Claudius' bishop of Taurino, that in all his Diocese forbade the worship of the cross, he answereth, Alphonsus de Cactro counteth him for an heretic, & jonas bishop of Orleans writeth against him. In deed jonas writeth against his overthrowing of Images, but he writeth all so against the adoration of Images. His words are these: Lib. 1. De cultu imagine. Claudius' praesul Ecclesiae Taurinensis, etc. Claudius' bishop of the Church of Taurine saw his flock (among other things which it did worthy of reformation) to be given to the superstitious, yea the pernicious worshipping of images, of which disease, some of those parts are sick of an old rooted custom, etc. So that not only Claudius, but also jonas, was directly contrary to this tenth article.  
Touching the brabbling distinction of Latria & Daulia, I refer the reader to mine answer to Doctor Sanders book of images, Cap. 6. or 5. as also for that noble argument that followeth, whereby he would prove that Papists cannot commit idolatry.  
That M. Calfhill affirmeth outward profession to be necessary for every Christian man. martial saith, he condemneth his doctrine of only faith justifying. Ver●ly, a club is more mere than an argument, to beat it into such an Ass' head, that when we teach that only faith doth justify, we say not, that God requireth nothing of a Christian man but faith only. Again, who would vouch safe to answer his quarrelling of true faith, without confession? The ruler's believed, but did not confess, john. 12. here was faith (quoth Martial) but no confession. But who will grant that here was a true justifying faith? Likewise this argument: There is a corporal service of outward gesture due to God, therefore it is no idolatry to kneel before an image. And again: Protestants kneel before images in glass windows, and hold up their hands at Paul's cross, therefore they defile their bodies with sacrilege. And if they excuse themselves by their good intent, the same will serve the Papists which adore the image for that it representeth Christ or his saints.  
But protestants adore no images, with any intent, thou foolish advocate of Idolaters, no more than martial doth reverence to a dog, when he putteth of his cap, or maketh courtesy in any house, where a dog is before him. And verily he sayeth, a man may as well be suspected for idolatry, if he bow before any visible creature, as if he kneel before an image. But not so probably, as martial may be suspected to be out of his wits, when he maketh such comparisons. The jews were not only suspected, but also affirmed by the gentiles to worship the clouds & the power of heaven, because in prayer they looked up to heaven: Qui puras nubes, & Coeli ●●men adorant, sayeth the Poet of them. Wherefore by Marshal's comparison, they might as well have prayed before images. And where he sayeth, that Protestants condemn outward things except hats, beards, barrel breeches, etc. he showeth his vanity. Our judgement concerning outward things that serve for order and comeliness (being not defiled with idolatry and superstition) is sufficiently known. What we teach of fasting & praying, vowing, etc. it were superfluous here to repeat, when public testimonies of our doctrine are daily given, both in preaching and writing. And surely I am to blame that vouchsafe such vain calumniating of any mention. That not to bow their knee to Baal is not a peculiar note of God's servants, because other things are required in God's servants, then to be free from idolatry, it is a foolish and more than childish quarrel. For in the days of Elyas, that was a peculiar note to discern them from idolaters, whom God had preserved both from yielding to idolatry in heart, & also from dissembling with outward gesture. But martial would learn whether M. Calfhill kneeling down before his father to ask him blessing, did not commit idolatry. How often shall I tell him: he is an Ass that cannot make a difference between civil honour and religious worship. And once again he must be answered, why the people are suffered to swear upon a book, with their caps in their hands, rather than to kneel before the cross in doing of their adoration to God. If he will be answered, I will tell him again, partly because it is against civil honesty that the people should stand covered before the judge, partly because they swear by the name of God, whom they ought to reverence. But kneeling before a cross to worship it, is manifest idolatry, and expressly forbidden by the law of God. Thou sh●lt not bow down to them nor worship them. The people are not allowed to put off their caps to the book, neither yet to swear by the book.  
When martial can prove, that it is lawful for Christians to worship images, than we will grant, it is uncharitable to judge them idolaters that kneel before them.  
But he will not grant the cross to be nothing in that sense that Saint Paul sayeth, an Idol is nothing, because it is a representation of a thing that was, by this reason the image of jupiter, Hercules, Romulus, which were men sometime, were no idols. The image of the Sun, of an Ox, an Ape, a Cat, etc. worshipped of the Egyptians, were no Idols, neither was the worshipping of them idolatry. The questions to be propounded in the Chancery, I leave to Martial to propound himself. But where he sayeth, that no evidence of any idolatrous fact in worshipping the cross can be showed in true Christians, I agree with him: but in Papists, if he mean them, great evidence. Who went a Pilgrimage to the roods of Bostone, Dovercourt and Chester, were they not Papists? who made the roods to sweat, to bleed, and to smell sweet as D. read did with his rood of Becclys, were they not Papists? Finally, who sayeth & singeth to the Crucifix? ave rex noster, etc. All hail our King: All hail, O cross our only hope, etc. I doubt not but the country of Christian men, will judge this as good evidence for pulling down the cross, as Ezechias had for destroying the brazen Serpent.  
It is Marshal's poor judgement, when you see men praying, they be Christian men: therefore they serve God in spirit and truth: but afterward, he restraineth it to men that were baptized in Christ. Yet may they be heretics, and therefore no true worshippers of God. But the which he spoke in way of humility, he will now say stoutly: Sir when you see men, that is to say men that are baptized, men that believe in God, praying yea before an image, and holding up their hands, and knocking their breasts, it is a good consequent to say they be Christian men. Ergo they serve God in spirit and truth: and we may not judge the contrary. This argument holdeth of the place of stoutness. For other consequence there is none in it, nor yet witty conveyance. For first when I see men, I must say, they be men that are baptized, and believe in God. Whereas by sight I can not perceive that they are baptized, & yet if I know that they be baptized, I can not tell whether they believe in God, as Christians, or as heretics, or whether they be hypocrites without faith. How shall I then judge them to be Christian men? Finally when I see them do an open act, contrary to Christian profession, yet by Marshal's divinity, I may not judge, but that they be good Christians, and worship God in spirit and truth. Even as by his Canon law, I am taught, that if I see a priest embracing of a woman, I must judge he doth it for no harm, but to bless her. To be short. Marshal's good consequent, will make him confess, that all the protestants that hold up their hands at Paul's cross, and say Amen when the preacher her sayeth, God confound the Papists, (whereat he scoffeth) be Christian men, and worship God in spirit and truth. As for their adoration of the cross, he saith standeth as well with the glory of God, as our kneeling at the communion, putting off our caps to the cloth of estate, to the Prince's letters, bowing to the Prince's person, kissing of the book, etc. So that with him things by God expressly forbidden, stand as well with his glory, as things by him commanded and permitted. In the end, complaining that Master Calfhill hath not answered him to thirty places out of the ancient writers, whereof let the Readers when they have compared, judge, he glorieth that his railing & slanderous conclusion, is not dealt withal, but by silence, which silence he taketh for a confession: but in deed it is a sufficient confutation of such lies and slanders as have no colour of truth in them. Our Saviour Christ being called a Samaritan made none answer to it. Socrates an Heathen man, kept silence when a varlet railed on him, wherefore silence in such case as this, is neither a confession, nor a conviction. To conclude, I will not altogether refuse, as Master Calfhil doth, to deal with So rued an adversary as martial is, but I would wish that the Papists for their credits sake, would henceforward set forth a better champion for their causes, or else help him with better weapons to fight in their quarrel. For in this reply he doth nothing in a manner, but either construe like an Usher, or quarrel like a dogbolt Lawyer.  
FINIS.