Foure sermons, lately preached, by Martin Fotherby Doctor in Diuinity, and chaplain vnto the Kings Maiestie. The first at Cambridge, at the Masters Commencement. Iuly 7. anno 1607. The second at Canterbury, at the Lord Archbishops visitation. Septemb. 14. anno 1607. The third at Paules Crosse, vpon the day of our deliuerance from the gun-powder treason. Nouemb. 5. anno 1607. The fourth at the court, before the Kings Maiestie. Nouemb. 15. anno 1607. Whereunto is added, an answere vnto certaine obiections of one vnresolued, as concerning the vse of the Crosse in baptisme: written by him in anno 1604. and now commanded to be published by authoritie

Answere.

As concerning your Maior proposition, That all monuments

and reliques of idolatry are vnlawfull, it must first bee exami∣ned and distinguished, before it bee either admitted or denyed.

First therefore as concerning these two words, of [Re∣lique] and [Monument what your meaning should bee in them, it is not plaine and apparant. A Relique in his origi∣nall sense, is properly nothing else, but the remainder of some body, which is for the greatest part consumed, as Ori∣gen noteth. Quae superest pars corporis, reliquiae nominatur. A monument, is some new worke, erected and instituted for the remembrance of that old body, which before was decayed. Both these words, by the common and ordinary Ecclesiasti∣call vse of them, imply, that both a relique and a monument are purposely destinated, to preserue the remembrance of that subiect, of which it is either a relique or a monument: as Festus noteth.

Now if you take a relique or a monument of Idolatrie in this sense, for either a remainder of that old idolatry which is now decayed, or a signe newly erected of purpose, to pre∣serue the remembrance of it, for the loue and reuerence which wee beare vnto it: then I yeeld your proposition to bee very true, that all such reliques and monuments of ido∣latry, ought to bee rooted out, and none of them vsed in the seruice of God. For that were to mingle light with darke∣nesse, Christ with Beliall, and the Temple of God with Idols, as the Apostle Paul speaketh.

But, if you take the name of a relique of idolatry, for any thing which hath in idolatry beene vsed, though the abuse thereof bee now reformed, and the nature thereof (by an other vse) cleane changed, as it is in our signe of the crosse: Or, if you take the name of a Monument, for any thing what-so-euer may bring into our mindes the remembrance of idolatry, though not ex instituto, but ex accidente, then doe I vtterly denie your proposition, as false. And that for these reasons.

First, because your selfe, euen in that proposition where you would eradicate all monuments of idolatry, yet doe it with this reseruation, If they be not either the creatures or or∣dinances of God. So that you seeme to grant a speciall dis∣pensation, vnto certaine monuments of idolatrie, to bee ad∣mitted againe into Gods seruice, namely if they be eyther Gods creatures or ordinances. Which (for ought that I know) haue by the word of God no greater immunities or exemptions, then haue mans ordinances and inuentions: as euidently appeareth by Agags sheepe, which were Gods crea∣tures: and the brazen serpent, which was GODS ordi∣nance: both which were destroyed, not-with-standing that indulgence which you seeme to giue them. So that the creatures of GOD haue no greater priuiledge, beeing monuments of idolatry, then other things haue. And I de∣sire to know, either the place where, or the case when, or the cause why, such priuiledge is granted them? For I sup∣pose that this clause of exemption, is but cunningly inserted into the proposition, onely to auoide the force of those eui∣dent examples which may be brought of GODS creatures and ordinances abused to idolatrie, which yet haue beene restored vnto their vses of piety: and to tye vs onely vnto the inuentions of man, wherein you suppose wee can bring you none instance.

So that, from this clause of your exemption, I thus argue.

The creatures of GOD haue no greater priuiledge then the ordinances of the Church: But the creatures of GOD (by your owne confession) are priuiledged from destruction, though they haue beene abused vnto idolatry. Ergo. The ordinances of the Church are likewise priuiledged: and consequently the crosse.

So that either you must shew by the testimonie of Scrip∣ture, where that speciall priuiledge is granted vnto Gods creatures, or else will wee plead it as a common lawe for

ceremonies, and for mans inuentions, as it pleaseth you to call all ecclesiasticall constitutions, though T.C. haue an o∣ther opinion of them, as you heard before pag. 16.

The second reason which moueth mee to deny your pro∣position, is the iudgement and practice of the primitiue church against it, who haue admitted of diuerse inuentions of men in the seruice of God, which had formerly beene a∣bused vnto idolatry, euen with deuils. To giue you one in∣stance, aboue all exceptions.

The Christians in the primitiue church, conuerted those same temples into the houses of God, which had before bin consecrated vnto heathen idolls. These idolatrous temples are mans meere inuentions, erected not only without any warrant, but also directly against Gods commandement: and yet you see, that the primitiue and purest church made no scruple at all of vsing those temples, though they were the same indiuidua that had beene abused, and haue an expresse commandement to be destroyed. Whose example (contrary to your position) all the reformed churches of Christendome do imitate, in vsing without scruple, those very same chur∣ches, which haue manifestly and manifoldly beene polluted with popish idols: which practise euen Caluin himselfe al∣loweth, Neque nobis hodie religio est, sayth he, templa retinere quae polluta fuerunt idolis, et accommodare in vsum meliorem. Now, what can bee the reason, why both the primitiue church and ours should so fully conspire in vsing the same temples which haue beene abused, (contrary vnto the ex∣presse and particular commandement of God as you imagin) but only this, that they thought not themselues there bound to vse destruction, where the things abused would admit a reformation, as it hath apparently done, no lesse in our cros∣ses, then in our churches.

If you call those temples, the creatures of God, because the wood and stone, and other materialls whereof they were made, are the creatures of GOD, you apply that name

vnproperly, and very abusiuely: and, by the sam•• propor∣tion, I may likewise call the signe of the crosse, the crea∣ture of God, because, In him wee liue and mooue, and haue our beeing: and without him is nothing made that is made: and, of him, and through him, and for him are all things.

If you grant these te••ples to bee mans inuentions (as they can not be denied to be the workes of mens hands, no nor of their heads neither) then must you either denie, that they were lawfully conuerted vnto the seruice of GOD, cont••ary to the running firea••••e of all Diuines▪ Or els you must cancell that, which before you auerred, That it is vnlawfull to vse the inuentions of man in the ser∣uice of GOD, if once they haue beene abused vnto idolatry.

My third reas••n of denying your proposition, is, that I doe finde you to bee singular in it, and all Diuines (beside your self••) a••ainst it. Peter Martyr, in an Epistle which he writ to B••shoppe Hooper vpon this very question, giueth these pregnant instances against your proposition. That not onely the temples of heathen idols were conuerted into the houses of GOD: but also their idolatrous reuenues, dedica∣ted to their playes to their Vestalls, nay, to their deuills, yet were co••uerted to the maintenance of Christian Ministers. Hee addeth in that place many other instances, and hee de∣liuereth his iudgement in this memorable sentence, Non mi∣hi persuadeo papatus impietatem esse ••antam, vt quicquid at∣ting t••omnino reddat contaminatum, quo, bonis et sanctis, vsus pio, non possit concedi. Marke vsus pio. With him likewise consent▪ both ••ucer, Gua••ter and Bullenger, whose senten∣ces beeing long to write heere, and yet very worthie the reading you may finde in Bishoppe Whi••gyfts booke. pag: 276.277. yea and euen T. C. himselfe (contrary to his owne Doctrine) ye•• is forced, by the euidence of the truth to yeelde thu•• much, That things abused to i••olatr•• may law∣fully ••••e vsed, in the Church, so that first they bee purified from their abuse. Yea and in an other place, hee yeeldeth that

euen monuments of idolatry (note your owne word) may bee vsed in the Church, so that there come manifest profit of them. Neither speaketh hee there of either the creatures, or ordi∣nances of God, but of the Cappe and Surplice which are mans inuētions, both which, though he affirmeth to be monumēts of idolatrie, yet he granteth that they might be vsed in the church, but that they be altogither with out any profit.

And againe he professeth of them, in that place that they neither haue any pollution in themselues, nor transfuse any pol∣lution vnto their wearers, but that hee reiecteth them for lacke of profit in them, and not onely because the Papists haue abused them. Vnto these I might ad Tertullians iudgment, who gi∣ueth many instances, of heathen mens inuētions which haue notably bin abused vnto idolatry, and yet had good vse in Christianity amongst which, these be some; that letters were first inuented by the heathē god Mercury & Physick, by the heathen god Aesculapius & yet the first of these he granteth to bee necessary, non solum commercij rebus sed et nostris erga deum studijs: the second, though it were the inuentions of a heathen, yet was vsed both by the prophet Isay towards king Ezechias, in prescribing him his plaister: and by the A∣postle Pa••l towards his scholler Timothy in prescribing him wine, in steede of water. Yea, and he further affirmeth, that our Sauiour Christ himself, when he girded him with linnen to wash his disciples feete, did therin vse the proper habit of the heathen god Osyris. And he determineth this question, with this conclusiō, that al those inuentions of heathen gods, may be vsed in the seruice of Christ and the true God, which do either bring to men, a manifest profit [as Mercury his let∣ters do] or, a necessary helpe [as Ezechias his plaister did ••or, an honest comfort [as Timothies wine did, the rest, which haue none of these vses, he condemneth.

My fourth reason why I deny your proposition, is, because euen you your selues, by your practice, confute it, in admit∣ting and wearing the cappe and the surplice, which are nei∣ther

the creatures nor ordinances of God, but meere inuenti∣ons of men, honored by the Papists with an opinion of holi∣nesse, and abused by them, in their idolatrous seruice; and immediatly from the Papists themselues, left vnto vs, and censured by the reformers, to bee the Prea••hing signes of Po∣pish priest-hood, Antichristian apparrell, and garments of idols. Which (as your selfe out of the prophecy of Isay alledge) ought to bee destroied: Notwithstanding, all which, you are content to vse them. Now I would gladly know a rea∣son, why these things may be vsed, and the crosse (beeing of the same nature, if not of a better) should bee so obstinately refused. For euer these forenamed instances (to let the crosse passe) are a practicall confutation of your theoricall opinion, that no monuments of idolatry may be vsed in the church, vnles they be either the creatures, or ordinances of God. This position you your selues doe manifestly confute, in vsing the surplice: which (peraduenture) is the same indiuiduum which hath bin abused, whereas the crosse (without peraduenture) is not the same. I write not this, as misliking your conformity and obe∣dience in those things, but as wishing it in the rest; wherin I see no greater cause of dissenting, then there is in this, not∣withstanding a••l those tragicall exclamations that the refor∣mers vse to agrauate the matter: Wherein they doe nothing els; but according to the prouerbe▪ tragedias agere in nugis, whose vehement exaggerations, as you hau•• neglected in the vse of the surplice, so haue you as great reason, to doe the same, in the vse of the crosse: ••hich you can not condemne as a monument of idolatry (beeing so simply vsed as it is in ou•• church) but you ••herein must condemne the whole world of Christianity, with whō it hath (frō the beginning) bin in vse.

Ob. But you bring, for the strengthning of your propositi∣on, three seuerall kinds of proofes. ••he fi••st from the notati∣on of the name of Monument. The second, from the testimo∣nie of the scriptures. The third, from the practice of refor∣med churches: wherein you giue instance in our owne.

Your first proofe, That all monuments of idolatry are to bee abolished is this: because they bee ordained to prese••ue and continue the remembrance of it, which you showe by this Notation of the name, that Monimentum, is quasi monens mentem. Whereby it appeareth, that you take the name of monument, not for that which casually▪ but for that which purposely admonisheth the minde: that so, by mouing a re∣membrance of it, it may stirre vp our desire and affection towards it. For otherwise, it may mouere, but it doth not promouere: it moueth our remembrance to no purpose, if it drawe not our affection to that purpose. So that you make a monument of idolatry, to bee (in effect) a muniment of idolatry.

Resp. I will take none exception at your notation, because I finde it backed both by Festus and Nonnius; though that termination [mentum] doth not alwayes imply mentem, as appeareth in many words; Condimentum, Pigmentum, &c. But if you take the name of monimentum, in this sense, for that which purposely preserueth the memorie of any th••ng, either for loue or honour sake; I haue yeelded before, your proposi∣tion to be true; that no such monument of idolatry is lawfull to be vsed in the seruice of God: But then with what conscience can any ma•• affirme, that our crosse in Baptisme is such a monument of idolatry? which all men know to bee institu∣ted for a farre other end, then to preserue the remembrance of Popery amongst vs, or to stirre vp any mans affection towards it.

If you take the name of monument in a larger sense, for any thing whatsoeuer, which may bring it vnto our remem∣brance, either casus, or consilio▪ then I say it is a false and a dangerous position, to hold that al such monuments of su∣perstition ought to bee destroyed, as I haue formerly decla∣red. For then (as Gualter truly noteth) We should pull downe our Churches, and renounce our liuings, nay wee should abandon not onely our ceremonies, but also our Creede, our Sacraments,

and prayers, all which may casually bring to our remem∣brance that idolatry of the Papists, wherein they haue beene abused. Besides, this absurdity would follow of it; If all such casuall admonitions should bee condemned; that the same crosse, at the same time, admonishing the Papist of his popish ad••ration, and the protestant of Christs death and passion, should at one and the same instant, be both a monument of idolatry and of true p••ety, and so should be lawfull and vn∣lawfull, both at once. And therefore, it were a miserable extending of the name of monument, to stretch it vnto all such casuall admonishments, and to condemne them as vn∣lawfull.

Ob. But you haue a second and a better proofe, taken out of the Scriptures, where you alledge two places: the one Deut. 12.2.3. where the Temples, the altars, the groues, the pillers of Idols are commanded to be destroyed, as well as themselues. The other place is, Isai. 30.22. where further euen the garments and orna∣ments of idols are commanded to bee abolished. And your glosse goeth yet further; that not onely the particulers in those places named, but also all that hath any neerenesse or affinity with idola∣try ought to be destroyed, without any limitation of vses, or miti∣gation of this rigor, how profitably soeuer they may be imployed.

Resp. Wherein I see, that you dissent as farre from T. C. (who is not so straight-laced in this point of idolatry, but he thinketh it very lawfull to vse the gold and siluer of idols garments) as he dissents from Caluin, who thinketh it vtterly vnlawfull. Therefore S. Augustines iudgment is worthy the hearing, who in his Epistle vnto Publicola, doth fully and soundly decide this question, and for these places alledged bringeth a very good exposition; namely, that GOD hath commanded such things to be destroyed, no•• as being simply vnlawful to all vses, but to restraine mens greedy & couetous desires, in conuerting them vnto their priuate vses; vt appa∣reat, ••os pietate ista destruere, non auaritia. In which Epistle he most plainly determineth of this whole question: the sum of

whose determination may be digested into these few apho∣rismes. 1. that the temples, & groues, and other such monu∣ments of idolatry, may bee destroied by those men that haue lawful authority. 2. that beeing so destroied there ought no∣thing of thē vnto our owne priuate vse to be reserued. 3. that yet notwithstanding, vnto publik vse, they may be imploied, yea, & not only to common vses, but also vnto religious vses too, in honorem dei, as he proueth by two instances, viz: the metals of Hierico laid vp, for Gods tabernacle, & the groue of Baall, cut downe, for Gods sacrifice. 4. that the reducing of such abused crea••ures vnto a better vse, is all one (in effect) with the reducing of a wicked man, vnto a better life. 5 that yet this prouiso must bee vsed that prouision bee made, that they be not stil honored. This is the whole sum of S. Augus∣tines decision; agreeing in many points with Peter Martirs iudgement vpon the same question; Epistolaad Hooperum. Both which learned Epistles are very worthy the reading, of all men which are perplexed with such intricate doubting, where they may finde great stay and comfort for their con∣science, if in truth and sincerity they do seeke for resolution, and not in pride and singularity for alteration.

Ob. The third proofe of your proposition, is drawne from the example of our owne reformed church, whose practise sheweth his iudgement. She, in abandoning rood-loftes, crucifixes, wax-can∣dles, and other like relikes and monuments of idolatry, sheweth in these particulers, that generall position to bee true in hir iudge∣ment, that, No relique or monument of idolatry ought to haue any vse in the seruice of God.

Resp. That a••l monuments of idolatry are to be abolished I haue formerly yeelded, taking those that be truely monu∣ments indeed, that is, for such idolatrous things as are pur∣posely reserued, to preserue the remembrance of idolatry a∣mongst vs, that so wee may not be weaned from it. As for incense, wafers, wax-candles, and such like things, which haue beene misapplied amongst the Papists, and w••ung to

a wrong vse, they cannot be called the monuments of idola∣try, but in a very forced and equiuocall sense, if our church should retaine them in an other vse.

The Godly care of our church, in abandoning all true mo∣numents of superstition, doth not inferre that the crosse is one: but rather proue that it is none, because our church hath not abandoned it.

Ob. But you seeme to insinuate that our church hath there∣in erred, hauing as great a reason to abolish the crosse as either Rood-lofts, or crucifixes, or wax-candles, or any other like monu∣ments of idolatry which she hath reiected.

Resp. Whether our whole church or you, are more likely to erre, in truely iudging and esteeming the monuments of idolatry, let wise men iudge. That which our church hath done in abolishing such things, doth sufficiently defend that which she hath not done: vnlesse we should imagine al those churches which haue receiued the crosse, from the time of the Apostles, to be lesse wise, or lesse religious, in matter of i∣dolatry, then a few priuate persons, sprung onely vp in our times, Nimirum (as Tertullian saith of Marcion) liberanda veritas expectauit Cartwrightum. All the world had surely di∣ed in idolatry, if T.C. had not helped to pluck it out.

But as concerning that discretion which our church hath made, in the abolishing of some things, and retaining of o∣thers, you are to vnderstand, that al the things she hath abo∣lished be not of one nature; nor for one cause reiected. Some things she hath abolished of meere necessity, because they were simply vnlawfull, as the image of the crucifix, set vp vp∣on the Alter, of purpose to bee worshiped, and so knowne to bee notoriously abused. Other things shee hath abo∣lished, onely vpon conueniency, because they were lesse profitable, as Salt, Oyle, Wax-candles and such like. These things shee hath abolished, not as monu∣ments of idolatrie, and things simply vnlawfull, but as needlesse ceremonies, and things not greatly profitable;

with whose vnprofitable number, shee would not haue her selfe vnnecessarily burdned. Now, in these of the first sort, in that our Church hath abolished all pa••ts and monuments of idolatry, shee hath therein discharged her necessary duty In these of the second sort, in that ••••e hath re••used some, and retained others shee hath therein vsed her freedome and li∣berty, yea euen in the things by your selfe fore••amed: as shee hath remembred her du••y, to take away the abuse, ••o shee hath not forgot her liberty, to refraine the things abu∣sed, the abuse beeing seuered. Such crucifixes shee hath re∣moued as were abused vnto idolatry, but yet left such still, as may admonish vs, by way of history The roode she hath cast downe, but left the loft standing. Wax candles she hath ••emoued from before the dead images, and yet retained them still, for the vse of liuing men, to see to praise God by. So that GOD is now praised by the same light amongst vs, by which he was dishonoured amongst the Papists, as hee is likewise by our crosse. And therefore from the practise of our Church in destroying of idolatry you can gather no more, but that the crosse (beeing not destroyed) is no monu∣ment of idolatry: vnles you will assume a deeper iudgment to your selfe, then you will grant vnto our whole Church be∣side your se••fe. This, for your proposition, and the proofe thereof; that All monuments of idolatry are vnlawfull in GODS seruice.

Ob. Let vs now come on vnto your Assumption that the signe of the crosse is a monument of idolatry.

Resp. Your proposition I denyed but with a distinction: but your Assumption I do sim••ly and absolutely deny. I de∣ny that our crosse is either a relique or a monument of po∣pish idolatry: and that vppon this reason following, which I wish may be well and throughly considered.

First as concerning the word Relique 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our signe of the crosse bee a relique of the Papists crosse then must it of nece∣ssity bee a part of it as I showed beefore, out of Origens

definition of a Relique. But our signe of the crosse is no part of theirs: and therefore, it cannot be a Relique of it.

That it is no part of theirs, appeareth by this reason: That euery part is either an integrall part, that is, a member of the same indiuiduall body: or else, an vniuersall part, that is either an Indiuiduum of the same Species, or else, a Species, of the same Genus. But our crosse (as we vse it) is none of all these: it is neither a part of the same Indiuiduall action, abu∣sed by the Papists; nor a whole Indiuiduum of the same Spe∣cies: no, no•• yet a Species of the same Proximum genus, and therefore it is not a part of theirs, and consequently no relique.

For the first of these points: That the crosse by vs vsed, is not any integrall part of that crosse which the Papists abu∣sed, it is cleare by this reason. Because euery seuerall crosse which any Papist maketh, beeing but a singular and indiui∣uall action, it is so farre from beeing possible to be parted & diuided betweene two diuerse men, that it is vtterly vn∣possible to bee iterated or renued by one and the same man. Heraclitus said, (and hee said truly) that it was vnpossible for any man, Eundem fluvium vis intrare: taking eundem there, for cundem numero. And so may I say as truly, that it is vn∣possible for any man, Eandem actionem vis peragere. For though the priest bee the same, and the hand the same, and the forehead the same, and the end the same, yet the action repeated is not the same: when he once hath made one sin∣gular crosse, he can neuer make the same crosse ouer againe. The same opus indiuiduuo hee may make againe; as a man may cast the same bullet in the same mold a thousand times ouer: but the same Action in indiuiduo (verbo causa his first casting of it) it is vtterly vnpossible hee should euer do againe. For to make a singular action againe, all these sin∣gulers must concurre: Idem agens, idem patiens, idem agendi modus, finis, tempus, all which are vnpossible to concurre any ofter then once. So that our crosse is so farre from

being an integrall part of theirs, that one of their owne crosses is no part of an other. And therefore our crosse can no more properly bee called a relique of theirs, then a bone of Saint Pauls body, can a relique of Iudas, of which it is no member.

Let vs now see whether our crosse be a part of the same totum vniuersale, seeing it is no part of the same totum inte∣grale. This point I thinke, if it ••uly be considered, will mani∣fest to all men, that our crosse and the Papists, bee not so neere of kinne, as it hath beene imagined. L••t vs therefore diuide the Predicament of Action into his seuerall Species, that wee may know how to giue vnto euery one his right, and not vnskilfully to confound those things, which nature hath distinguished.

Actio, alia

• ...Animi gaudere, dolere.
• ...Corporis
  • ...Interna, concoctio, digestio, assimulatio.
  • ...Externa.
    • ...Comunis, Loqui, ambulare.
    • ...Sacra
      • ...Genuum fl••ctio▪
      • ...Crucis effictio
        • ...Papistarum quae superstitiosa, quia cultui destinata
          • Permanens 1. imago crucis
            • ...H••ec.
            • ...Illa.
          • Transiens 1. signum crucis
            • ...Hoc.
            • ...illud
        • ...Protest intiū, quae religiosa, quia pi etati accōmodata
          • Permanens 1. imago historica
            • ...Haec.
            • ...Illa.
          • ...Transiens. Signum crucis
            • ...Hoc.
            • ...illud.

By this Series it appeareth, that our crosse is neither an Indiuiduum of the same Species with the Papists, nor yet a species of the same proximum genus: but seperated from it, by three substantiall differences. The first is taken from the Agents, that theirs is the crosse of Papists, ours of Prote∣stants: which maketh that these two actions cannot bee indiuidua of the same species. For a Protestant an•• a Papist are two diuerse Species or kindes of worshippers; and there∣fore their actions of worship, must by consequent, bee as

differing in Species, as bee their agents. The second diffe∣rence betweene their crosse and ours (which maketh them yet more distant) is taken from their differing ends: a point which altereth the very nature of the actions. The Papists make their crosse as it were a kinde of Exorcisme, to keepe them from euill spirits: but wee doe make our crosse to no such superstitious end, but onely (as by a significant cere∣monie to admonish our mindes of Christs meritts towards vs and of our duties towards him. These two differing ends, doe yet put a further difference in the actions. There is yet a third difference, which still remoueth them further: and that is, that that very remotum genus, of Sacra actio, vnder which, both the Papists crosse and ours is contained, yet doth not praedicari vni••ocè of them both, but of ours onely vniuoce: and of theirs, aequiuocè: as Homo doth of pictus and of viuus homo. For their crosse, though it be in name Sacra actio, yet is it in truth and in deed, profana. So that the Pa∣pisticall crosse and ours, agree but in two things: First, in the name, that both are called Crosses: and secondly, in the scheme and outward forme of the action, in that both of them bee made of one figure and fashion. But they differ in three points, of farre greater waight.

First in the nature of the actions, in that the one is true∣ly a religious action; the other aequiuocally religious, truely superstitious. Secondly, in the nature of the Agents: The one beeing sincere worshippers of the true GOD, the other corrupt worshippers of abhominable Idols. And thirdly in the end of the actions; the one beeing desti∣nated vnto true pietie, the other likewise vnto impious idolatrie.

Thus doe our crosse and their toto genere differre, so that the corruption of the one, cannot transfuse infection into the other: but that we may as lawfully vse ours, notwithstanding their vnlawfull abuse of theirs, as we may breath of the same ayre, into which Idolaters haue fumed their incense; or

drinke of the same waters, in which Idolaters haue washed their sacrifice, as Saint Augustine truly noteth. And therefore these actions, being in nature so distant, the one so innocent and religious, the other so nocent and superstitious; if any man shall either condemne the one, for the abuses of the other, or condemne them both for the abuses of the one, it is all one iniustice, as if one should condemne an innocent creature, for the faults and vices of a malefactor; and it falleth directly into that woe of the Prophet: Woe bee vnto them that call goo••, euill; and euill, good. And that againe of the Wiseman. He that iustifieth the wicked, and he that condem∣neth the iust they are both abhomination vnto the Lord. For as Saint Augustine truly noteth, Peccat, qui damnat quasi pecca∣tae, qu••c nulla sunt.

Thus our crosse (as you see) is no relique of their crosse, of which it is neither a member, nor a part. Now let vs see whether it be a Monument of idolatry, or no: your selfe do bring this Etymon of that name, that Monimentum, is quasi monens mentem, which is Isidores deriuation: which eui∣dently sheweth, that the end of all monuments is admoniti∣on; and to keepe in our mindes, the remembrance of those things, which (otherwise) might happily decay amongst vs. Hence, temples, and Sepulchres, are propperly called their monuments vnto whom they bee dedicated. So that a Monument of that, in remembrance of which it was purpose∣ly erected, and not of any other thing, which by an other mans fantasie is thereby imagined. In this sence, our crosse, may truly be called a monument of Christ our Sauiour cruci∣fied, for whose remembrance it is purposely intended; but why it should be called a monument of idolatrie, it hauing no such end or purpose, as to conserue the memory of it, I can see no reason. A monument (as I sayd before) can onely be called a monument of that which intentionally it admoni∣sheth, and not of any other thing, which conceipt and fan∣cie from the same collecteth. For so we might quickly make

Quidlibet, ex Quolibet, and euery thing might bee called a monument of all things: by so farre vnlike things are wee oft times put in minde of some other things. The Israelites by the long vse of Manna amongst them, were not onely put in minde of the flesh-pots of Egypt, but also prouoked to lust and desire them. Shall wee therefore say, that Man∣na was a monument of their idolatrous food in Egypt, be∣cause by loathing of the one, they were admonished to lust after the other? A man oft times is admonished to remem∣ber some one thing, by another which is of a contrary na∣ture, (as the prodigall child was, who by seeing the base estate wherein himselfe was, remembred the good estate wherein his fatners seruants were) yet cannot the one of these, bee called a monument of the other: because this ad∣monition is meerely casuall, and not naturall. If then any man bee casually admonished to remember the idolatrous crosse of the Papist by seeing of ours, this admonition proceeding, not ab intentione agentis, but à corruptione spectantis, cannot make our crosse a monument of theirs, no more then a Birde flying, or a man swimming, or a plowe going, or a ship sailing, may bee called a monument of the crosse, because by all these figures a man may bee put in minde to remember it, as diuerse of the Fathers haue ob∣serued. Iustine Martyr. orat. ad Antonium Pium. Ambros. Serm. 56. So that our crosse can neither bee a relique of theirs of which it is no part; nor yet a monument, of which it is no signe, and therefore your assumption (as I hope you see) is false.

Ob. But you confirme the same vnto vs, by three speciall proofes which demonstrate our crosse to bee a monument of superstition. The first is this: Because it was by the Papists idolatrously abu∣sed, who ascribed vnto it, diuine Holinesse, Power, and Ado∣ration. The second is, because it is from them left immediatly vn∣to vs. The third, because our pretence of a differing end in vsing it, is not a sufficient defense for it. Because by that reason, all other

monuments of Idolatry, yea euen idols themselues might bee brought in againe. This is the summe of that fortification whereby you indeuor to make good your Assumption, that our crosse must needs bee a monument of idolatry. Let vs therefore consider of all these things apart.

Resp. For your first Obiection: that our crosse hath beene idolatrously abused, nay made a very idoll, you proue it by three instances: whereof the two first are insufficient. For, what if they thought the signe of the crosse to haue either greater holines, or greater power, thē indeed it had; must this needs make it become by and by an idol? The Iewes thought both their holy citty Hierusalem, and the temple therein contained, to be a great deale holier then indeed they were: did this opinion of theirs therefore make those two thinges idols? Elisha in like manner, when he sent his staffe to raise the childe to life, did thinke it to haue had a greater power, then it had: yet did not that opinion make the staffe become an idoll. So likewise the Papists, in thinking the crosse to haue either a kinde of holynesse to sanctifie the vsers, or a kinde of power to driue away the diuills; in these fancies they declare, rather the errour of their opinion, then the idolatry of their religion.

But your third instance of adoration, (if it bee ideed di∣uine which they giue vnto it: for all agree not in this point) that is a good demonstration, that to them it is an idoll. But what is that to vs? how followeth it, that our crosse must needs be a monument of idolatry, beecause theirs is an idoll any more then our oxen are monuments of idolatry because the Egiptians oxen were their idols? Whether all oxen are made vnlawfull for the seruice of God, because some were made idols, that is an other question; but that all oxen must be monuments of idolatry (if our crosse be one) that is out of question. For, the reason which you make against the crosse, doth hold as strongly against the oxe; yea euen to the banishing him from all vse of the tabernacle (notwith∣standing

your inserted clause of exemption) if there bee any sound truth in your generall proposition.

Ob. For your 2. obiection; that the crosse is a monument of idolatry because it is immediatly left by the Papists vnto vs. That is faulty in all parts: for this must needs bee the summe of your argument, if it haue any argument.

Whatsoeuer is left vs immediatly by the Papists, that is a mo∣nument of of idolatry. But the crosse is left vs immediately by the Papists. Ergo.

Resp. In which argument, both your Maior and your Minor be false. First for your Mai••r: It is not the leauing of any thing vnto vs by idolaters, which maketh the thing left, a monument of idolatry, vnles it bee also a part of their idolatry. For, both the Scriptures and the Sacraments are left vnto vs (in your sense) by the Papists, who are knowne to be notorious idolaters: and yet neither of these (I hope) will you call, the monuments of idolatry.

Ob. But these (you will say) be the ordinances of God, and so may haue vse in the seruice of God, by that clause of exemption, which you haue inserted into your first proposition, that no monu∣ments of idolatry (beeing neither the creatures, nor ordinances of God) can haue any vse in the seruice of God.

Resp. Though that clause of exemption admit them into the seruice of God; yet doth it not exempt them from being monuments of idolatry, if this bee a good reason which you here alledge why the crosse should be a monument of idola∣try, beecause it is le••t vs immediatly by the Papists. For, the crosse is left vs none otherwise by the Papists, thē both Scrip∣tures & Sa••raments are left vnto vs by them, yea & their ido∣latrous Churches too: which may truly & properly be called Monumenta, the monuments of idolatry. Vnto which you are forced to graunt an vse in GODS seruice, notwithstan∣ding they bee both the same indiuidua which haue beene abused, and are no better but the inuentions of men.

Ob. Now, for your Assumption, That the crosse is left vnto

vs immediatly by the Papists, that is as false as your propositiō was. For that only may properly be said to be left vs, which is de manu in manum deliuered vnto vs, as the Apostles did their Traditions vnto their successors. In a second and a more proper sense, that also may be said to be left vnto vs, which by immitation we borrow from others as the apostles againe did, their law of Blood and strangled, from their pre∣decessors, in the law. But neither of these wayes can the crosse bee said to be left vs by the Papists. For, first, vnto vs (whome they count heretikes) they could not leaue any thing which they hold so precious: and secondly, from them (whome wee count idolaters) wee would not borrow any thing, which wee held so superstitious. So that, neither of these two waies, is it left by them vnto vs. And much lesse the third way, which is, by Desertion, as though wee had come vnto it, tanquam in vacuam possessionem, for they still do fight for it, tanquam pro aris et focis. So that, I cannot see, how the crosse can be said to bee left vnto vs, by them, vnles you thereby intend that we haue as it were wrung it out of their hands; and that so they left that to vs, which they could not with-hold from vs.

If you take this phrase [left vnto vs] in a sense so prodi∣gally and prodigiously large, that you count all that to bee left vnto vs, by those men which haue vsed the same things before vs: then may both the sunne and the moone, and all the elements bee said to bee left vnto vs by idolaters, and consequently to be The monuments of idolatry. and so what is there any where, which (in this so large and so laxe a sense) may not be called A monument of idolatry?

As for this point, therefore, we truly professe, that wee borrow not this ceremonie from the Romish Synagogue (though they haue more lately vsed it) but from the primi∣tiue Church, who first ordained it. So that as it cannot tru∣ly bee said, that the Papists haue left vs either the Lords praier, or the Apostles creed, or the holy sacraments, but that

wee take all these (by our owne right) out of the holy scrip∣tures, which are open to vs, as well as to them: so can it not truely bee sayd, that the Papists haue left vnto vs the crosse, but that we do borrow it from the primitiue church: whose customes, the Papists haue no more authority to ingrosse vn∣to themselues, then the Protestants haue: but may as freely be vsed by vs, as by them, for, Patet omnibus veritas, nondum est occupata.

But if it were granted, that this ceremony of the crosse, though left vnto vs by the primitiue church, yet were brought vnto vs by the hands of Papists, doth that present∣ly make it a monument of idolatry? if one should receiue a token by the hand of a Pagan which were sent vnto him from a Christian; is it therefore made a monument of idolatry, because he that brought it was an idolater? Holy orders were giuen vnto the first Protestants, by the hands of Papists: doth this so defile the orders of our ministery, as to make them presently the monuments of idolatry? Surely, though the Papists, haue very foule hands, yet do I not take them, to bee so vgly foule, as the Harpies feete were, which defiled all things that they once had touched: non mihi persuadeo (sayth Peter Martyr) papatus impietatem esse tantam vt quicquid at∣tingit, contaminatum reddat, quò bonis vsui sancto, concedi non possit. In whose Christian and charitable iudgement I doe willingly sit downe.

Ob. Now, for your third obiection. That the change of our end in the vse of the crosse, doth not make any change in the na∣ture of the thinge.

Resp. I wonder you will affirme a thing, so contrary vnto the rules of Logike and reason. Who knoweth not, that of all the causes, it is only The end, which maketh all actions to be either good or euill? especially in things of indifferent na∣ture. Tertullian doth giue vs some instances to this purpose. et ego mihi gallinaceum macto, non minùs quàm Aescul••pio Socrates (saith he) et, si me odor alicuius loci offenderit, Arabiae

aliquid incendo. What is the reason then, that his killing of a cocke, and his burning of incence, (beeing all one action with that of the idolaters) yet is not idolatry, as their action was? He answereth it himselfe: quia, vsus ipsius administra∣tio interest. And againe, that he did these things, nec eodem ritu, nec eodem habitu, nec eodem apparatus, quo agitur apud ido∣la. So that, it was his difference in the end, which made such a difference in the actions. For (as Saint Augustine to the same purpose obserueth) non actibus, sed finibus pensantur officia, which our Sauiour also declareth, by three notable in∣stances in the Pharisies, viz, fasting, almes, & praying, al which good actions were (in them) corrupted, by their euill ends, because, they did them to be seene of men. So that, the end (as you see) not only exempteth an action from sinne, but also in∣fecteth an action with sinne.

Ob. But you say. That then by altering of the end, wee may bring back againe euen heathen idols too.

Resp. I answere, that the comparison is very vnequall. For heathen idols, are most euidently forbidden and condem∣ned in the scripture, which the crosse is not. And yet that there may bee such an alteration in the end, that euen hea∣then idols may haue some vse in Gods seruice, I haue shewed you before out of Saint Augustines iudgment.

Notes

• Orig. hom. 5. in Psal. 36.
• Festus in voce, Monimentū.
• 2. Cor▪ 6.16.
• Looke p. 22.23.
• Deut. 12.2.
• Cal. Exposi. in Exod.
• Act. 17 28. Iohn. 2.••. Rom. 11.36.
• Pet Mart. Epist ad Hoo∣per••m.
• Whitg. pag. 284.
• 256.
• Tertul lib. de Coron cap. 8.
• Isai. 38.21. 1. Tim. 5.23.
• Whitg. pag. ••82.261.283.
• Pag. ••0.
• pag. 53.
• pag. 11.12.53. &c W••itgift. pag. 277.
• Whitgift. pag. 273.
• Cal. in Isai. cap 30.
• Aug. epist. 154.
• Iosh. 6.19. Iudg. 6.25.2••
• Note this.
• page: 53.
• Plut: lib de E.I.
• Arist. lib. Ca∣tegor. cap. 1.
• Aug. epist. 154 ad Pub∣l. col••m.
• Isai. 5.20.
• Pro. 17:15. lib. 3. cap. 15. de lib. arbitr. Tom. 1. p. 662.
• Isidor. lib. 14. Orig. cap. 11.
• Numb. 11.4.5.6.
• Luk. 15 17.
• Isai. 1.21. Ier: 7.4.
• 2 King: 4.29.31.
• Bellar. Tom. 1. cont. 7. lib: 2. cap. 22.24.
• Exod. 8.26.
• 1. Cor. 11.23.
• Act: 15.20.
• Nostrum quippe est, quodcunque de nostris, sumpsisse et tradidisse con∣tigit illis. Ter∣ul. lib. de tes∣••imonio ani∣mae cap. 5. Senec. Epist. 33.
• Virg. lib. 3. Aeneid.
• Aug. Epist. 48. ad Vincent.
• Tertul. lib. de Coron. cap. 10
• Aug lib. 4. cont. Iulian Pelagian cap. 3.
• Mat. 6.2.5.16
• Pag. 59.