it was laide wherevppon as soone as it touched her she recouered This report of Rustinus seemeth to be vncertaine first because Ambrose sayeth the crosse was knowen by the title without speaking of any miracle secondly because the reporte of other writers is that the miracle was of a dead woman and some of two dead persons wherof to see more I referre the reader to mine answere to D. Sanders booke of Images cap. 13. or 12. Concerning the rest of the Miracles reported by Paulinus Epiphanius Augustine and others let thē haue such credite as their authors deserue which is not to build faith or doctrine vpon them or their writinges let it be that some were true and wrought by God yet followeth it not that al that haue bene since reported in the Popishe Legendes were either true or not wrought by the deuil whereabout Martiall maketh much wrangling but neither affirmeth nor concludeth any thing vniuersally None vse more crossing then witches and coniurers the deuil seemeth to be afraide to come neare them certaine strange works are brought to passe by them Let Martial affirme any vertue included in the crosse or signe thereof absolutely then we may deale with him accordingly For while he telleth vs what may be done by faith y e signe of y e crosse and what God hath done by good men with that signe it is nothing to the authorizing of that signe seeing the deuil by credulitie in wicked men hath don the like by the same signe And this is a true position of M. Calfhil though Martiall will not vnderstand it That it is not a sufficient proofe to make a thing good or to shew it to be good because he cauilleth like a calfe a◠the worde of making to say that miracles were wrought by it Martial asketh first whether the miracles of Christ were not a sufficient proofe of his diuine power Where he flyeth from the position which speaketh not of the principal efficient cause out of a ceremonie a meane or instrument More pertinently he asketh of the hemme of Christs coate Saint Paules napkins whether they had not a vertue by his body I answere no. No more then Iudas lippes that kissed Christe and Peters shadowe which could neither be holy nor efficient of any thing because it was nothing but the priuation of the light by comming betweene of his body So I say of coates napkins ashes of Martyrs and signe of the crosse if any miracles were done by meanes of them they are not thereby holy neither haue they any vertue in them The Lord hath giuen vs a generall rule to examine all miracles and miracle workers by the doctrine they teache Deut. 13. If there arise among you a prophet or dreamer of dreames and giue thee a signe or wonder and y ◠signe the wonder which he hath told thee come to passe if he say let vs goe after other Gods which thou hast not knowen and let vs serue them thou shal not hearken vnto the words of that prophet or vnto that dreamer of dreames for the Lord your God proueth you to know whether you loue the Lord your God with al your heart and with all your soule Ye shal walk after the Lord your God and feare him and kepe his cōmandements and hearken vnto his voyce and ye shall serue him and cleaue vnto him By this scripture we are taught to examine all miracles whether they tende to the honour of the only true God and the maintenance of his true worshippe according to his worde whiche Martiall him selfe in a manner confesseth saying that miracles done by heretikes are not able to commende a thing But he findeth great fault with Maister Calfhil for coupling the generation of a childe in adultery or feeding by stollen breade to be miracles because they be not extraordinarily miracles and yet he can not deny but they be great wonders and the reason of the meanes is all one in both Nowe let vs see howe he aunswereth those three reasons of Maister Calfhils why miracles make not for the crosse And first he aunswereth to a question Why the durt in the streete by whiche Christe wrought a miracle should not be honoured as well as the crosse on the altar He aunswereth because the crosse was an instrument by which all the worlde was saued So was Iudas so was Pilate The second He saith the crosse is a liuely representation of Christes death Nay a dombe and dead idoll which is good for nothing Abacuc 2. The thirde The crosse is effectuous euer since A deed efficient The crosse is commaunded of God to be made and vsed by diuers Reuelations from heauen Nay by the diuell from hell and yet if Angels from heauen had taught the crosse to be made and vsed as another Gospell as it is accounted of the Papists as great as circumcisiō was of y e Iewes not preached by the Apostles not conteyned in the Scriptures we might safely accurse them But now to the reasons the first is Why should not such external meanes as Christ and his Apostles vsed scripture mentioneth be had in administration rather then the idle deuice of man of which there is no lawfull president Martiall answereth the crosse is no idle deuise but a tradition of the Apostles whereof they haue lawful presidentes But seeing no president is lawfull to builde our faith vpon but the holy scriptures which the Papistes haue not for their crosse the reason standeth vntouched The second reason If miracles were done by the signe of the crosse yet not onely by it therefore the crosse should not only be magnified without the rest Martial affirmeth that hee would not haue the crosse magnified without the rest as prayer and faith How doeth he then magnifie the crosse in Iulians storie which was without prayer and faith The third reason If miracles were done by the crosse yet it should not be had in estimation except all other thinges by which miracles were wrought as the he◠of Christes garment the spitle and clay the shadowe of Peter and napkins of Paule were likewise honoured and esteemed Martial aunswereth this is but his assertion for which he hath neither scripture councel nor Doctor As though an argument A paribus were not good except the conclusion were expressed in Scriptur doctor or councel Yet he replieth that the crosse is the principall meane by which miracles haue ben wrought But the Scripture is against that for Christ wrought no miracle by the signe of y ◠crosse Nay I slander him for he reasoneth not ad idem but the crosse is the cheefe and principal instrumente of our redemption yet not holier then the speare the reede and the sponge as Athanasius affirmeth Ad Antioch que 16. But euen the hemme the spettle and clay if he had them Martial would honor worship esteeme for his sake whose pretious body they touched Then let him worship the sunne that touched him with his beams of light or
of Easter but Mox confiteri be shriuen out of hand which was not done in the face of the Church but priuatly in the chamber Whereas this Mox confiteri for all his shamelesse and ignorant babling is not at al in that chapter which is this De poenitentibus verò qui siue ex grauioribus commissis saue ex leuioribus panitentiam gerunt si nulla interueniat aegritudo quinta feria ante Pascha eis remittēdum Romanae ecclesiae consuetudo demonstrat Coetterùm de pondere aestimando delictorum sacerdotis est iudicare vt attendat ad confessionem poenitentis ad fletus atque lachrymas corrigentis ac nom iubere dimitti cùm viderit congruam satisfactionem Sane si quis in aegritudinem inciderit atque vsque ad desperationem deuenerit ei est ante tempus pasche relexandum ne de saeculo absque communione discedat Nowe concerning penitents which either for greater or smaller offences do penance if no sicknesse come betweene the custome of the Church of Rome sheweth that they must be released the fifth day before Easter But as for esteeming their offences it is the priestes part to iudge that he may giue heede to the confession of him that repenteth to the teares and weeping of him that amendeth and then to bid him be dismissed when he shall see conuenient satisfaction But truely if any man fall into sicknesse and that he be come euen 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 shriuing for the cōfession was made publikely before penance inioyned and if in this case of necessitie there were confession in the chamber it is not proued to be auricular nor common to all men without the case of necessitie That which he citeth afterward out of Hierome in Eccles. cap. 10. is meant of asking counsel of an afflicted conscience For Innocentius that was after Hieronyme testifieth of the publike confession of the Church The rest also that he citeth out of Augustine and Cyprian is plaine of open confession and neuer a word of auricular cōfession inioyned by Papists vnder paine of damnation he can bring within the first 600. yeres Wherefore I will helpe him Sozomenus lib. 7. cap. 16. sheweth that in the Church of Constannople a Priest was appointed which should heare confessions of them that came to him and inioyning penance should absolue them but by Nestorius this order of confession was taken away bicause a certain noble woman was corrupted in the Church by a Deacon Where also he sheweth that the custome of Rome was to do open penance and not priuate This writer testifieth of priuate cōfession vsed and abolished within the 600. yeares but with infinite inconueniences instituted a fresh in y ◠later Romish Councel of Latrane The 11. difference is of the merite of good workes which he will proue by Scripture first out of Ecclesiasticus 16. All mercy shall make place to euery man according to the merite of his workes Which is neither canonicall scripture nor rightly tāslated for according to y ◠truth of the Greeke it is thus He wil giue place to al good deeds and euery one shal find according to his works The second text is 1. Pet 4. Charitie couereth the multitude of sinnes By which y ◠Apostle meaneth as Salomon out of whose Prouerbes he citeth it that euen as hatred causeth brawling and discouering of mens infirmities so charitie couereth and concealeth the multitude of our brothers offences This is nothing for merite The third place 2. Pet. 1. When he biddeth vs to labour to make sure our vocation election by good workes By which words the Apostle willeth vs to confirme vnto our selues the certaintie of our calling and election which is most certaine to God by the necessarie effectes and fruites of our election and calling which are good workes not the cause but the effect and end of our election He hath chosen vs that we might be holy Ephe. 1. not bicause we were holy His fourth text is 2. Cor. 8. Let your aboundance supplie their lacke that their aboundance may supplie your lacke also Which I agree with him and Theodoret to be the communiō of Saints but I denie that the communion of Saints is of merites but of graces and benefites of God The last text is Col. 1. S. Paul perfourmed in his flesh such as lacked of the passions of Christ that is the effectes and fruits therof which was to suffer with Christ for his body which is the Church meaning that the Church and not he onely should haue merite thereby This blasphemie was farre from S. Pauls meaning who saith not that he should merite any thing which Christe had not merited but that he as a member should suffer that which Christ had not suffered who suffered as the head for our eternall redemption and Paul as a member suffered to be made conformable to the head not to redeeme the Church but to giue testimonie to the Gospell of saluation for the edifying of the Church Wherefore I wil conclude with Ambrose ad Virgin exhor Vnde mihi tantum meriti est cui indulgentia pro coronae est Whence should I haue so great merite when mercy is my crown and with Augustine in Psal. 43. Quid dicturi sumus merita nostra fecisse vt nobis illa salus perpetua mitteretur à domino absit si merita nostra aliquid facerent ad damnationem nostram veniret What shall we say that our merites haue caused that this perpetual saluation should be sent to vs from the Lord God forbid If our merites did any thing it should come to our damnation CAP. V. Of the single life in the Cleargie of the state of Virginite in Nunnes of Monkes and Friers of the vowed profession of both The 12. difference is the single life of the Cleargie He saith we reade expressely lib. 1. cap. 27. in Bedes historie that none of the Cleargie had wines that were within holy orders Howe expressely we reade you shal heare the very words of his own trāslatiō And if there be any among y ◠Cleargie out of holy orders which cannot liue chast they shall take wiues and haue their stipend allowed them without Here is no expresse words that none of the Cleargie that were within holy orders had wiues but a particular order for Augustine and in respecte that he was a Monk not to haue his portion of the oblations seuered frō his Cleargie if any of his Cleargy were married so that he was not to liue in the College among vnmarried men that he should haue his stipende allowed abroade For the manner of the see Apostolike was then as Gregory saith whiche the Papistes nowe obserue not to giue commaundement to such as be made bishops that all maner of oblations that are giuen be diuided into 4. portions And the one thereof giuen
men without authoritie of the Pope and for priuate men he counteth the bishoppes of Spaine and Fraunce in their prouincial councels these binde not generally except the Pope allowe them some things are receiued by tradition custome generally receyued vnaltred such is the crosse some are brought in by tradition and custome but not generally receyued as that infantes should receyue the communion c such the crosse is not But seeing he hath not concluded the contradiction of Maister Calfhils sixte rule it standeth still vnmoueable That some things are brought in of a good intent whiche are not allowable The seconde rule is what so euer hath bene vpon good occasion receiued once must not necessarily be reteyned still but by aduice of Stephanus bishop of Rome if it be turned to superstition be altered by them that come after These aftercōmers saith Martiall are none other but the bishops of Rome his successours who as they made the lawe so they must repeale it But Stephanus sayeth Si nonnulli ex praedecessoribus maioribus nostris fecerunt aliqua Naming not onely his praedecessours but also his Elders wherefore he meaneth y t not onely his successours but also his after commers in euery particular Church as well as his successours in the Church of Rome ought to abolish with good authoritie such abused customs But Martiall wil not acknowledge that crossing hath bred such inconueniences y t the inward faith hath bene vntaught that the vertue hath ben giuen to y t signe which onely proceedeth from him which is signified For crossing was not the cause but the negligence of the Cleargie As though there may not be many causes of one thing And if crossing were but an occasion of such inconueniences there were good cause to take it away Also he denyeth that they attribute the vertue of the signe without relation to the merites of Christes passion whereas M. Calfhil speaketh not of suche shiftes as craftie Lawiers can make for their excuses but of the opinion of the ignorant people who haue thought without any further relation that the signe of the crosse was an holy blessed and wholesome thing And what do they that vse the example of Iulian who crossing himself of custome and not with any relation to Christe whome he despised prooue what vertue the signe of the crosse hath when the diuels immediately auoyded do they not manifestly ascribe vertue to the signe without relation of the maker Yea sayth Martial but Christe gaue such vertue to that signe by his death and passion Shewe that out of the Scriptures and the controuersie is at an end But Martial the Lawier for the vertue of the crosse citeth Martiall the Apostle for so he will be called was as his cosin Martial the Lawier affirmeth one of of the 72. Disciples of Christ. But seeing hee and his epistles haue slept seuen or eight hundreth yeares in a corner y t they were neuer heard of by Eusebius Hierome Gennadius nor any other of those times he commeth to late nowe to challenge the name of an Apostle or Disciple of Christe whose name or writinges in so many hundreth yeares no man hath registred But this argument is of authoritie negatiue quod Martiall But what argument haue you so good to prooue him authenticall as this is probable to proue him counterfet Nay if we beleeue Martial Maister Calfhil hath falsified the Scripture in saying that no man dare come neare nor resist Leuiathan and Behemoth the deuils for beside the quotation is false cap. 40. for 41. The Popishe translation hath not so and Christe his Apostles and faithfull doe resist the Diuel Yea sir but not with sworde nor speare whereof he speaketh nor with your crosse but with spirituall armour As for the errour of the quotation your translation euery childe may see how fonde a quarrel it is The excuse that Maister Calfhill maketh for Damascen seeing Martial doth not allow let him make a better himselfe for some of Damascens errours were such as Martial himselfe and the Papistes will not allowe But Lactantius maketh the bloud of the pascal Lambe sprinkled on the dore post a figure of the crosse on mens foreheads That is false in your sense Maister Martiall for he speaketh allegorically of the spirituall impression of of the bloud of Christe by faith and that his wordes declare where he saith that Christ is saluation To all which haue written the signe of bloud that is the signe of the crosse vpon which he shed his bloud on their foreheades But Christ is not saluation to all that haue your signe of the crosse on their bodily foreheades But whereas Lactantius in the next Chapter saith that deuils are chased away both by the name of Christ and by the signe of his passion if it pleased God in those times by such outward signes to confound his aduersaries what is that to defend the superstitious and erronious abuse of those signes at this time And here Martiall falleth into another brabble for mistaking his argument which is not worth a strawe the end is the crosse is like a sacrament although that it be not as good as a sacrament But wherein it is like it hath neither institutiō nor element nor promise nor effect of a sacrament then it is as like as an apple is like an oyster You say it is instituted by tradition Proue y t tradition to haue come from Christ and his Apostles I haue shewed it came from heretiks Again God said to Costantine In hoc signo vince I haue shewed that God spake neither of a crosse nor of a signe And yet if he had it was but a particular vision authorizing no generall obseruation You say it may be a sacrament as well as bread and wine whiche hath no promise you lie like an arrogant hypocrite For bread and wine in the vse of the Lordes Supper hath as good promise as water in baptisme Concerning the effect of the sacramentes and howe they be causes of grace not as principall efficients but as instrumental meanes by which God vseth to worke in the faithfull it were to begin a newe matter to stand in argument with you which doe nothing but wrangle scoffe and rayle in this argument as you doe in all the rest Wherefore to returne to the crosse Maister Calfhil saith that if there were such necessitie in the crosse to fight against Sathan the Apostles dealt not wisely to omit such a necessary weapon Martiall aunswereth that neither he nor the Fathers defende it as necessary Well then we haue gayned thus much that the crosse is a needelesse weapon against the diuel But if it had ben necessary he saith it had bene none ouersight in the Apostles which haue in some epistles omitted more needefull matters As though they were bound to speake of all matters in euery Epistle But of the vse of the crosse they neuer speake no not where they instruct a Christian man to fight against the