imagined presence of Christs bodie in the sacrament which being graunted according to your doctrine of transsubstantiation inferreth moste necessarilie that Christs bodie at once is both compassed in a litle bread which is contrarie to the nature of a mans true bodie and also is not compassed therein as sitting in heauen and hauing the naturall properties of a true bodie which cannot be brought within so narrowe a compasse as is your wafer cake This is repugnant to scripture to reason to Gods ordinaunce and therefore a moste absurde and impossible thing is it that Christs bodie should remaine a true naturall bodie and yet at once be contained in so small a compasse as you teach In that Christ and Peter walked on the water no such inconuenience nor absurditie can be found whether the waters were made by miracle firme as the ground or the bodies were sustained by Gods power that they suncke not Christ might beare vp him-selfe and Peter from sincking downe by his diuine power and chaunge no naturall propertie of his or Peters bodie but Christs bodie can not be brought into that slender compasse of your mathematicall cake without destruction of all properties incident vnto a natural body So then betweene these two is no likenes at all as any man not blinded with Popish folly and not wilfullie shutting his eyes against the cleare light may manifestlie perceiue Wherefore distrusting this argument you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon as in the authoritie of Epiphanius whoe hath not anie worde at all to this purpose For tell vs Master Rainolds doth Epiphanius drawe an argumente from Christs walking on the water to prooue his bodie reallie present in the sacramentall bread No such matter can you finde in Epiphanius or any auncient father of Christs Church That which Christ hath said he that beleeueth not to be true is fallen from grace and saluation as Epiphanius writeth but Christ hath neuer said that his bodie should be in the compasse of a litle bread Howbeit what talke you of a litle bread when you teach no bread at all remaineth but onelie signes and shadowes of bread False is your doctrine and foolish is your argument but bad reasons are good enoughe for such a bad religion Of Peters walking on the water pag. 498 is gathered an other argument of like qualitie to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie which argument was first inuented and deuised by Saint Bernarde in his second booke and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope Manie waters are many people Peter walked on the waters therefore Peter and his successors are rulers ouer manie people saith good Saint Bernarde to whome your Pope is greatlie bound for deuising such a fine argument which no auncient Doctor was able to finde But must we now receiue Bernards phantasies for substantiall proofes of the papall supremacie No Master Rainolds Saint Bernarde hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tiranny which in those daies was established Your comparison of this argument with that of Christs about the brasen serpent and of Pauls concerning Isaac and Ismael is no better then blasphemous Might Saint Bernarde with like authoritie reason thus Peter walked on the waters therefore he and his successors are supreme gouernours of the vniuersall Church as Christ did shew the manner of his death by the lifting vp of the brasen serpent in the desert or as Saint Paul did prooue the haued and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians by example of Ismael and Isaac Had Bernard the fullnes of wisdome and trueth that was in Christ was Bernard alwaies directed with that spirit wherewith Saint Paul expounded the scriptures of God Here we may see how baselie you thinke of Gods word to match therewith mens seelie expositions and applications such as Saint Bernards often times were and this moste notablie is An argument is gathered for workes of supererogation pag. 499. out of the Samaritanes wordes whatsoeuer thou shalt bestow more or as it is by them translated Luc. 10.35 whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This argument saith Master Rainolds followeth wel enough and is Saint Augustins conclusion to prooue that Saint Paul did supererogate when he might haue receiued all duties for preaching the Gospell but would not That men may remit some part of their due and doe more towardes men outwardlie then they can of necessitie be vrged to doe no man will denie and thus may one man be said to supererogate towards another but what maketh this for workes of supererogation towards God whoe requireth both inward and outward obedience of vs in moste absolute manner For reall presence a like argument to the first is gathered of Christs transfiguration Pag. 499. whereof yet Master Rainolds being ashamed saith it is not their argument Matt. 17. â— but onelie a deduction that Christ maie giue vs his bodie in forme of bread and wine A proper deduction no doubt of a glorious bodie to prooue no bodie That Saints can heare and helpe vs euerie where pag. 500. because they are like to Angels is a verie bad argument Mat. 22.30 considering that neither Angels can so do for then were they of equall power with God and though Saints are like to Angels as in other things so in this that they marrie not yet it followeth not that therefore they are equall to Angels You are glad of such arguments hauing no other but if ye had better ye would not esteeme such Ioseph wrapped Christs bodie in sindon pag. 501. Therefore Christs bodie on the altar must be laid in pure linnen Mat. 27.59 In this argument Master Rainolds cannot tell what I mislike whether the reall presence or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other I answere in a worde I mislike all there being no trueth in anie of all The women came to beholde the sepulcher pag. 502. Ergo we must goe to the holie sepulcher in pilgrimage Matt 28.1 This argument Master Rainolds confesseth cannot indeede prooue that we must but that we maie goe in pilgrimage by example of those godlie and zealous women which yet is a false and fond deduction seing there is no such like cause for vs to goe as was for them That Christ appeered to the twoe disciples in another forme pag. 504. cannot prooue that he is in the sacrament in forme of bread Mark 16.12 for somuch as in Christs bodie noe alteration at this time was wrought but onelie the disciples eies were helde that they know him not as Saint Luke expreslie noteth Luk. 34.16 For your exorcisme in baptisme argument you saie you made none of Christes saying to the dombe and dease Ephpheta Mat. 7.34 If no argument no proofe if no proofe then no cause to vse by example of Christ such exorcisme in you baptismes pag. 505. Luk. 1.3
to the sonne of God and may not be communicated vnto anie man whosoeuer And therfore neuer did our Church giue that title in such wordes vnto the Prince not yet did the Prince euer chalenge the same and so herein is no dissension For the Princes lawfull supreame authoritie in procuring for the Church a good and peaceable estate in defending of the same by maintaining Gods true religion worshipp against heretikes and schissmatikes in remoouing of manifest abuses and disorders in causing the ministers of the Church according to their offices and vocations to execute their duties faithfullie in punishing them if they be found negligent al this with assistance of godlie and learned Ministers of the Church by that absolute and immediat commission which euery souereigne Christian Prince hath receiued from the Lord God being not subiect to anie foraine power of Priest or potentat this also all Protestants confesse with full consent therein condemning the Popes Antichristian supremacie who contrarie to Gods worde chalengeth a sole supreame gouernment ouer al Christian Princes Churches in the world Is this now a good proofe that Protestants haue no certentie in their faith Secondlie pag. 11. touching baptisme Master Rainolds thinketh he hath found some contradiction betweene the communion booke which affirmeth that by baptisme children are regenerate and wherein the Minister exhorteth the people not to doubt but Christ will giue to the Infants baptized eternall life and betweene the disputation in the Tower of London the second daie 〈…〉 wherein the doctors teach that al those who are baptize◠are the sonnes of god If your eies were matches things that are but one would not thus appeere double vnto you Babtisme is the sacrament of new birth wherein our adoption by Christ is sealed vnto vs and we are made the sonnes of God as manie as beleeue both sacramentallie and spirituallie the vnbeleeuers onelie sacramentallie Wherefore this is not so to be vnderstood as though whosoeuer is baptized shall therefore be sure to haue eternall life For Simon Magus was baptized and yet condemned and so also manie moe besides notwithstanding their baptisme shal be excluded from fellowship with the Saints in Gods kingdome So that to be baptized proueth not necessarilie assurance and certentie of life euerlasting in all persons Why then might not the Doctors be bolde to saie that baptisme of it selfe hath not this force to make anie the childe of God that in baptisme none can be made the children of God if they be not his children by election For doubtles he that commeth to be baprized vnles he be one of Gods elect can not in baptisme receaue the gift of adoption which onely belongeth to those that are predestinate and elect and election is not begone in baptisme but was before the foundation of the world Againe betweene the communion booke and me Master Rainolds hath noted a manifest difference pag. 12. as he thinketh The booke hath sett downe an order of priuate baptisme and I finde fault with womens baptisme It is sufficient for answere to you that priuate baptisme is one thing and womens baptisme is another Priuate baptisme hath bene sometimes maintained and vsed in the Church but womens baptisme was neuer allowed in any tolerable state thereof neither doth the communion booke make anie mention of women nor doth giue any authority to women to minister baptisme And therfore reproouing and disalowing of baptisme to be done by women I haue not thereby spoken any word against our communion booke Concerning necessitie of baptisme wherein you would fasten vpon me some suspition of Anabaptisme I graunt baptisme is necessary if it may be had according to Christs ordinance and institution so that the contempt thereof is damnable but not in such sorte necessarie as that the lacke thereof without contempt shal bring a man into the state of condemnation If you will thrust out of Gods kingdome all that are not baptized you shall take awaie from the Lord manie of his deare children whome yet he will not deliuer ouer to your cruell iudgement and power of Sathan The communion booke appointeth not a sacrament of cōfirmation pag. 13. But yet there is an order for confirmation of children which for anie thing I know is in all communion bookes the same Shewe vs what fault you finde with vs for it and answere shall be giuen you sure I am in respect hereof you haue no cause to complaine of our vncertentie in the faith Pag. 14. About the article of Christs descension into hell I graunt there hath bene some diuersitie of iudgements yet so as the trueth of that article is confessed of all The manner of his descension may be doubted of by many protestants but your opinion that Christ in soule descended into hel to fetch vp the soules of the faithful deceased before his passion is generallie improoued Caluine saith not that Christ was damned aliue in soule vpon the Crosse as you foully slaunder him but that Christ taking vpon him selfe our sinnes and punishments suffered in minde those paines of hell for a time which we otherwise should haue sustained for euer Deny this and denie the iustice of God to be satisfied which taketh awaie al hope form vs of escaping the torments of hell and being throughlie reconciled with the Lord. Christs diuinitie acknowledged in our communion booke no protestant euer denied pag. 14. As for Caluins Autotheisme as you fondly terme it I haue answered if you can And if you list to read more of this matter I referre you to that which Lambertus Danaeus hath written against Genebrard and Iordane of Paris concerning the same Our doctrine in this behalfe is no other then hath bene the catholike doctrine of Christs Church euermore In labouring of malice to blaze abroade some heresy of Caluine your selues are now become defenders of heresy against the blessed Trinitie For tell me Master Rainolds if the substance of the Godhead be the same in the sonne and the father and the substance of the father be God of it selfe must not the Godhead of the sonne be of it selfe But you confessing in words Christ to be God in denying him to be God of himselfe take his diuinitie from him indeed For God is of himselfe God by propertie of his owne nature and substance which in denying you are proceeded as farre and somewhat farther then the wicked Archeretike Arius I could turne you ouer to your owne schoolemen and bid you to striue against them In Centil conclus 62. Quod Christus secundùm existentiam diuinam non est filius Des. letting Caluine alone Looke vpon William Ockam a famous schooleman who was not affraid to publish this position amongst his hundred diuinitie conclusions That Christ according to his diuine being is not the sonne of God which how he expoundeth there maie you see but if Caluine had written in such termes whoe could haue staied the outragious cauilling of
the scriptures wherein he doth not so much honour to them for placing them in the first roome as iniury and disgrace in ioyning with them anie other For as they are grounds of all true doctrine so are they onelie grounds and as in matter of faith arguments ought principallie to be drawne from them so such arguments onelie conclude necessarilie as euen your owne Thomas of Aquine doth directlie confesse Thom. 1. part 1. qu. artic 8. ad 2. Traditions of the Apostles are but deuised forged things which you make your second heade and therefore no staie for a man to settle his conscience vpon For tell me if you can which be the Apostles traditions how many and where they may be found If you cannot satisfie this demaunde as you cannot indeede how may you then make any reckoning of that whereof you haue no certaine knowledge how can you without falling builde your faith vpon fantasies such as they are The Apostles doctrine we haue in writing other traditions of the Apostles we receiue none for our beliefe Concerning the catholike Church which is your third head we reuerence and loue it as the spouse of Christ but we know that her duetie is to hearken onelie to the voice of Christ her husband and that she hath no authoritie to adde so much as one iotte to his worde or anie waies to dissent from it And further we know that your Romish synagogue is not that Catholike Church of Christ whereof we speake For generall councels and Doctors which are other twoe of your principall heades we esteeme and regarde them in their place we thanke God for them we reade allowe and commend them so far forth as they agree with Gods word If you thinke they neuer disagree from it your owne masters will correct you and tell you an other tale Are not these then goodly groundes and heads of faith that euen your selues are enforced oftentimes to disauow As for your supreme pastor of the Church we know him not by that name if you meane anie other but Iesus Christ alone For who so els taketh that honour and office vpon him to be the supreme pastor of the Church he is a theefe an Apostata an Antichrist make as great accompt of him as you list And where you saie we care for none of these groundes you speake vntruelie your selues indeede caring for none but onelie the last which is in stead of all the rest The determination of your supreme pastor that is your scripture your Apostolicall Tradition your Church your councels your Doctors your Faith your saluation your onelie staie in this world and in the world to come Scriptures you prooue we deny pag. 26. because we admitte not the authoritie of Tobias for inuocation and helpe of Angels nor of Ecclesiasticus for free will But you must first of all prooue which neuer shall you be hable to prooue that Tobias and Ecclesiasticus be canonicall scripture before you can inferre that we denie the scripture These bookes are not the holie Canonicall scriptures as we haue prooued against you by most inuincible and manifest demonstration by councels Fathers Doctors your owne Cardinals and schoolemen and we reioyce with all our harts that such popish doctrine hath no better scripture for proofe thereof then Apocryphall which because it hath a counterfayte stampe is no currant monie among the Lords people And for Traditions vnles you can approoue them by authoritie of Apostolicall scripture you haue our answere we regarde them nothing we know not from whence they came we will not giue ouer the certaine scriptures for such obscure and most vncertaine traditions For Councels true it is the argument holdeth not in this forme such a Councell decreed soe and therefore so must we beleeue Sett this principle downe for certaine and perpetuall in diuinitie and we shall haue strange beliefes enow yea scarsely shall we retaine any one true beliefe Two farâ—ous generall Councels haue beene held in Nice the first and the second In the first is condemned the Popes supremacie Can. â— in the second is established the Idolatrous worship of Images The first beliefe you will not alow the second we detest Let Councells therefore be esteemed as they deserue let their decrees be examined by Gods word and if they agree let them be receaued for that agreement if not let them be reiected for the contrarie The same iudgement haue we of auncient fathers pag. 27. Learned and Godlie men we graunt they were but yet men hauing their infirmities and imperfections Their learning their zeale their ages were noe priuiledge vnto them but that notwithstanding they might be deceiued in their writings and expositions of scripture And take you this Master Rainolds for a sure conclusion that in the sayings of those who are all of them subiect to errour there is no stable and steadie ground to build our faith vpon lest perhaps we build vpon error in steade of trueth vpon the sand and not vpon the rocke So that without tryall and examination no sentence of a father nor of all fathers may safelie be receiued Neither are we so addicted to the late writers pag. 28. as to beleeue whatsoeuer they haue saied we are no more partiall vnto them in this behalfe then we are vnto the auncient fathers our religion and faith hangeth not vpon the sayings of men be they olde or younge but onely vpon the canonicall scriptures of God And as for Augustine Ierome and Cyprian they are as much ours in the moste and weightiest controuersies as Luther Caluine or Melancthon And if they or any other be against vs so longe as scripture is for vs our cause is good and we will not be ashamed thereof And therefore moste false is it that you say our Diuinitie resteth vpon these fathers pag. 29. c. whome you so scornfullie compare with the olde fathers We vse not to alledge for proofe of any doctrine Thus saith Caluine Bucer or other but thus saith the Lord thus saith the Prophet thus saith the Apostle thus the Euangelist thus is it written in the scriptures thus we reade in some booke of the olde or new Testament Notwithstanding we vse also to reade the fathers both olde and new as much as your selues and oftentimes we rehearse their sentences and expositions not as proofes in doctrine of them selues but to stoppe your mouthes that crie so lowde in the eares of the simple that all the fathers are against vs it being moste true that they are notablie and generallie as I haue saide for vs You talke in this place as one that would saie something and telleth a long tale but in the end forgetteth of what he meant to speake Of all that you saie make your conclusion and then shall appeere how emptie and barren a declamor you are Now saith Master Rainolds if these serue not pag. 31. a man woulde thinke their martyrs testimonie should be irrefragable And thinke you
then the argument to be so sure and necessarie that is drawen from authoritie of a martyr will you graunt this reason to be inuincible A marttr hath saide it therefore it is true what say you then of Cyprian the martyr of Iustinus the martyr of Irenaeus the martyr who notwitstanding their blessed martyrdome are knowne to haue maintained opinions against the trueth If martyrs then may haue their errours how may the testimonie of martyrs be alwaies irrefragable you see good readers how pithie a disputer this man doth shewe him-selfe to be If his loose rhetorike helped him not a litle better then his logike he were in verie weake and miserable case Lastlie concerning wholl Churches reformed pag. 32. what can you Master Rainolds conclude against vs In matter of discipline greate difference heretofore hath bene amongst the Churches East and West Greeke and Latine If then some such be in our reformed Churches can you thereof truelie gather that therefore they are not the Churches of Christ Tell vs what you meane if you haue any trueth or certaintie in your meaning Next Master R. reckeneth vp sundrie Popes that are amongst the Protestants in stead of one true Pope pag. 33. which I know not whereto it serueth but onelie to shewe that the protestants haue so great detestation of the Pope and his tyrannie that they cannot endure in anie professour of the Gospell anie small shadowe of such Lordelines as the Pope vsurpeth ouer the Church Your true Pope whereof you speake is as much as a true Antichrist of whome the scriptures haue foretolde The name the person the authoritie all Protestants abhorre and accurse to the prince of darknes from whence it came Againe he is in hand with generall Councels and saith it is impossible pag. 34. that euer we should once imagine how anie Councell amongest vs should be gathered His methode is according to his matter confused and disordered leaping and iumping from one pointe to another like a wilde bucke vpon the mountaines Although we haue not a Pope as you haue yet by Gods grace generall Councels maie wee haue if Christian princes that professe the gospell will iointlie take vpon them the care thereof And generall Councels haue bene assembled and helde many hundred yeares before your Pope by such a name was euer knowne or heard of in the world and so may they againe both Christianlie and generallie be held allthough your Pope with all his proude cleargie were returned from whence they came That hitherto no such Christian Councels haue bene gathered it maie be imputed to the generall troubles in all Christian countries and to the aduersaries that haue bene raised vp by your Pope and his Cardinall satrapes to hinder as much as in them laie all meanes whereby a Christian generall Councell might be gathered Howbeit if a generall Councell cannot be procured to be celebrated with quietnes there is no doubt notwithstanding but that the Lordes cause maie without it daylie more and more preuaile as it hath done heretofore in times moste persecutions To the section that followeth containing onelie a recapitulation of these former discourses pag. 34. c. I haue no nede to make any further answere Your complainte against vs for refusing all grounds of disputation pag. 38. how vaine and vntrue it is hath bene shewed The onelie true and certaine grounde of religion and of all disputation about the same which is the authoritie of God reuealed vnto vs in his holie worde we imbrace we holde we rest vpon it which forsomuch as you haue fullie tried to be against you so that you cannot thereby approoue one article of your popish faith nor disprooue anie doctrine that we maintaine against you therfore desperation driueth you indeede to refuse this grounde as insufficient and to seeke other grounds of which we haue noe warrant in Gods worde And although it please you for this cause to raile at vs and saie we are worse then the heretikes of olde time yet we know that rhe auncient godlie fathers in confuting all heretikes vsed onelie arguments drawen out of the scriptures and plainelie taught that by no other weapons an heretike can be put to flight I knowe they charge them oftentimes with the iudgement of Churches successions of Bishops determination of Councels name of Catholikes not as though this were a necessarie conuiction of it selfe but thereby the rather to induce them to beleeue the doctrine to be true which they see from the first planting thereof in the Church to haue remained Your case is nothing like seeing you haue onely the bare title without the thing and as it were the emptie casket without the treasure But for so much as you accuse â—s for casting awaie the grounds of Diuinitie I desire euerie Christian man to weigh with himselfe what ground it is wheron al your religion and Church standeth First the scripture must not be scripture in any other sense then as the Pope will expound it so that the scripture being the meaning of the scripture and the meaning of the scripture being the Popes exposition hereof it followeth that the scripture is nothing els but the Popes interpretation So likewise in Traditions Doctors Councels Churches if any thing dissent from the Popes vnderstanding and determination it is reiected abolished condemned and finally all faith all religion all Diuinitie of Papists is onelie the Popes sacred will and pleasure Now then this being their owne certaine resolution I would gladlie be enformed how by the same a man may be assured of any faith it being further also agreed and confessed among themselues that the Pope maie fall into heresie Then who seeth not that their ground being shaken their staie failing all that is builded and vpholden thereon is clean ouerthrowne If they saie the Pope falling into heresy forthwith ceaseth to be a Pope I demaund whoe they are that must iudge the Popes cause and giue sentence against him And if the Pope be obstinate and teaching heresie and therewith infecting the world will notwithstanding stoutly stand in defense of his doctrine and will keepe his chaire what shift haue you then or what can you doe against him seing he is your Pope your head your author and founder of all your faith Thus a man going with you along and comming to the end of all findeth no staie but must wander still as in an endles Labyrinth wherein he shall at last languish and perish euerlastingly That you wish we would be content to yealde to the verie scriptures themselues pag. 40. doubt you not Master Rainolds thereof but we are most redie to yealde vnto them if ye would be as willing the controuersy might haue thereby and by other good meanes an end But your conscience telleth you scripture will not serue you and therfore in a word you deny the wholl bodie of the scriptures Thinke not good reader that herein I haue spoken rashly without reason I know what I
third of Iohn are not Canonicall scripture Cardinal Caietane denieth sunday bookes and partes of Canonical Scripture in the new Testament where fore Catharinus hath written against him that the Epist of Iude is Apocryphall that the last Chap. of S. Marke is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. Iohn is not authentical namely of S. Iames Ep. that the salutation is prophane hauing nothing of God nor of Iesus Christ But what speake I of Caietane disalowing certaine bookes and parcells of diuine scripture whereas Hosius another Cardinal and one chiefe founder of all your late sophistications hath written most dishonorably and vilely of the wholl scripture for thus he sayth Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis est verbum Dei quomodo profertur ab haereticis Hofius contra Brent lib. 4. est verbum diaboli that is The scripture as it is brought forth by the Catholikes is the word of god as it is brought forth by the Heretikes is the word of the deuil So that by this notable Cardinals iudgement if a Protestant that is in their language and meaning an heretick shall alledge for proofe of Christes eternall diuinitie the beginning of the Gospel written by Saint Iohn this scripture shall now become of Gods word as it is and alwaies shal be the word of the deuil because it is vsed by such as they account and call heretikes O blasphemous hand and tongue And can you prooue this Maister Rainolds can the word of God be made the word of Sathan It will not stand with your honestie to maintaine it Gods word by whome-soeuer it be vttered though by the deuill him-selfe is not the worde of the deuill God is immutable so is his worde Then hath Hosius blasphemed in calling Gods word the deuills word which you ought to consider who thinke you haue found somewhat against the Protestants when you shewe what Luther hath written in some disgrace of Saint Iames Epistle I can further put you in remembrance what others of your syde haue taught and maintained to the great slaunder and derogation of the Scriptures and that not in one worde or two but in earnest and long discourses Pighius Hierarch li. 1. Cap. 2. What doth Pighius labour to perswade in one whole Chapter often in other places by occasion but onlie that the Scriptures haue al their credit authoritie from the Church as though they had not any of them selues from the lord by whose spirit they were written For thus he sayth All authoritie of Scripture among vs dependeth necessarily vpon the authoritie of the Church Neque enim aliter cis credere possemus nisi quia testimoniumillis perhibenti Ecclesiç credimus for we could not otherwise beleeue them but because we beleeue the Church giuing testimonie vnto them And againe The primitiue Church hath made certaine proofe vnto vs that the writings of all the Euangelists are of canonicall trueth and not the Euangelists themselues that were the writers And against SS Marke and Luke he disputeth at large and boldly auoucheth that they were not meete witnesses of the trueth of those gospells which they writ Marcum Lucam nonsuisse testes libneos veritatis scriptorum à se Euangeliorum Ecclesie therefore euen while they liued that credit was not giuen to their Gospels for them-selues no not of those that certainly knew they were written by them yea and farther also had their verie principall copies written with their ownehands but for the Apostolike Church Yea this presumptuos and arrogant spirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and sayth that the Gospells were written by the Euangelists not to the end that those wrytings should beare rule ouer our faith and religion Non quidem vt scripta illa praeessent fidei religionique nostrae sed subessent potiùs Hoc Euangeli um inquit vnicum solumque designans Eu◠gelium esse nō que nos Matthaei Marci Lucae Ioannis que dicimus Euangelia quat uor Hier. li. 3. ca. 3. Ceusur Colonien pag. 112. Cusan epist 2. 7. but rather be subiect thereunto And yet a litle more blasphemouslie That they are not the true Gospell which Christ ascending into heauen commanded his Apostles to preach to euery creature What should I rehearse his often reprochfull comparisons of scripture to a nose of wax and a rule of lead which may easelie be turned bowed and applied euerie way at our pleasure which also the Censure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner And to the same effect hath Cardinall Cusane long before set downe that the Scriptures must be expounded diuersly and framed to the time and practise of the Church so that one time they are to be vnderstood and interpreted one waie and an other time an other way Which is more vnreasonable and absurd by many degrees then if one should prescribe that the Ladie must conforme hir selfe to the fashion and manners of hir handmaide William Lindane hath bene and still is a stout Champion for the Pope Lindan Pan. Lib. 1. c. 17. in whose defence he hath vttered many bolde blasphemies against the Scriptures as namelie that the Euangelists tooke in hand to write the Gospels Non vt aliquam totius Euangelij methodum insormarent non vt Christianae fisdei summam consor berent Lib. 3. cap. 1. not to the intent to set downe any forme of the wholl Gospell or to write the sume of Christian faith And that the authoritie of the word not written is greater then of the word written which question he saieth maie easilie be determined howsoeuer to some it seemeth full of difficultie and perplexitie Lib. 3. cap. 6. De to to in vniuersum sacrae scripturae corpore accipiendum and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paules epistles that in them are somethings hard to be vnderstoode the same must be taken and ment generallie of the wholl bodie of the Scriptures soe that according to this mans doctrine there is not in all the scriptures one easie sentence and S. Peter was ouerseene to saie that but somethings in the epistles of Saint Paule were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he should rather haue said that all things were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. cap. 22. Furthermore that it is extreame madnes to thinke the wholl entire bodie of Euangelicall doctrine is to be fetched out of those sole Apostolike letters written with incke Dementissimae insaniae Ex pusillo noui testanmenti libello and that litle small booke of the new testament Thus scornefullie wirteth this proud Papist of the diuine scriptures and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable similitude that it is as greate a want of wit to esteeme iudge that al Euangelical doctrine is comprehended in the bookes of the newe Testament as if one should saie that the wholl frame of the world is contained in some one sensible creature
So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the scriptures of the new testament Such mad wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie Ambrose Catharine saith It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize scriptures Catharin in epist ad Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas reprobat or to reprooue scriptures to Canonize true Saints and to reiecte false meaning thereby that the holynes authoritie and estimation of scriptures procedeth frō the Pope Wherein yet he seemeth to haue foulie forgotten that canonicall scriptures are a greate deale more auncient then the Pope and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him But thus they vtter their minde that scripture is no otherwise the word of God then as it is approoued authorized and Canonized by the Pope which is in effect to bring the holy ghost vnder the censure approbation of a man and such a man as he I omit because I will not be tedious a number of such sayings moe wherein the holie scriptures of God are shamefully intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther they accuse him with out all measure continuallie for calling the epistle of Saint Iames a strawne epistle not absolutelie in it selfe but onelie in respect of S. Peter and Paules epistles Thus much now haue I thought good for satisfiing of the godlie to answere If you will not be satisfied you may write againe twise as much more whoe can let you this matter requireth no longer talke CHAP. 2. Of the canonicall Scriptures and English Cleargie FRom Saint Iames Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes refused by the Church of England which yet he saith were not further disprooued in times past then that epistle of Saint Iames whereupon he would haue his reader beleeue that in alowing some bookes and reiecting others we are ledde by opinion fansie not by learning or diuinitie Wherein Master Rainolds your selfe haue shewed that opinion not learning ruled you when you writ this For Saint Iames epistle was neuer disprooued by the wholl Church of God but onelie by some of the Church but those bookes that are refused by vs were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures had no greater credit then they are of with vs as shall appeere The reason therefore of our refusing them is not as you imagine because they containe some proofe of your Romish Religion which we cannot otherwise auoid but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie but because they doe bewray themselues of what stampe they are by most euident markes and therefore haue bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore sette in the same degree that they are left by vs. These Reasons you sawe comming against you and because you durst not openlie encounter with them you steale by an other way let them passe But I must call you back a litle though it be to your griefe and trouble and require of you a plaine and direct answere how those bookes of the olde testament which are commonly called Apocryphall written first in Greeke or some other forraine language can be Canonicall For all bookes of holie scripture in the olde Testament were written and deliuered to the Church by the holie prophets of God being approoued by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets Therefore Abraham answered the rich man Lue. 16.29 requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house They haue Moses and the Prophets whereby it is plaine that the wholl doctrine of the church then was contained in the bookes of Moses and the other Prophets 2. Pet. 1.19 And Peter saith we haue a more sure word of the Prophets meaning the scriptures of the olde testament And so the Apostle to the Hebrewes writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1.1 By which testimonies of Scripture it is prooued that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets But the writers of those Apocriphal books were no Prophets as may easily appeere For then they would not haue written their bookes in Greeke as is confessed most of these were nor in any other tongue then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time as Moses and the Prophets after him writers of the holie scriptures had done The Church was then amongst the Iewes and the Prophets were the messengers ministers of God in that Church and vnto it they deliuered dedicated their bookes Wherefore the Greeke tongue being not the tongue of Canaan nor of the Church then was not chosen by the Prophets to write and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord so that the verie tongue wherein these bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Testament And here I omitte particular arguments which might be brought against euery one of those bookes seuerallie whereby it may be prooued inuincibly that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures yet they had not the spirite of God for their father Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustines authoritie De doct Christ l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongst the Canonicall bookes of scripture and so you say did the Catholike Church of that age But that this is a moste manifest vntruth appeereth by S. Ierome Praesa in Pro. Solom whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth those bookes but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures So although Saint Augustine had thought them to haue bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets which are called properlie Canonicall yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in those dayes as Saint Ierome doth let vs vnderstand who liued in the Church of that age In what sense S. Augustine calleth these bookes canonicall Saint Augustine calleth them indeede Canonicall by a general and improper acception of that word because they are red in the Church and containe profitable and Godlie instruction but yet not so as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such bookes as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader Periculosis mendacus phantismatibus and bring preiudice to sound vnderstanding And then giueth a rule to preferre those bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches before them that some Churches receiue of those that are not receiued of all to preferre those that the moste of greatest authority do receiue wherby you may see the vanitie of that you said before that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall And
further if Saint Augustine himselfe had bene of your opinion he would not haue giuen this admonition to preferre some before some but would haue straitly and precisely charged that no difference should be made but all receiued alike being al of like authoritie As for Daniel albeit some parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue yet was it vnderstood of the Church being then in captiuitie vnder the Babylonians and that tongue is but a diuerse Dialect from the Hebrew and differeth littel from it My second reason Pag. 21. you say is of more force and if I prooue it you promise to be of my iudgement Let vs then set downe the reason first and see the proofes afterward I sayd betwene thosde bookes Apocryphes of the old Testament and Saint Iames epistle there was this difference that they were refused of the wholl Church and so was not Saint Iames wherfore we had reason to reiecte them and not this By the wholl Church I meant not onely the primitiue Church of Christians as you supposed but the Church of the Iewes before Christ which neuer allowed those bookes for Canonicall as your selues confesse which is an inuincible argument against them For had they bene Canonical that Church would not nor ought not to haue reiected them and other Church there was none then to allowe them So by your iudgement it must be thought that diuerse bookes of Canonicall scripture were neuer receiued for many yeares in any Church which howe absurde it is euery man seeth The Apostle writeth that vnto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 whereby is meant his word But these bookes the Iewes neuer receiued and therefore they are of another sorte then those that containe the oracles of God And that the Iewes did not amisse in reiecting them it may be vnderstoode in that they were neuer reprooued by Christ or his Apostles for the same Their false expositions of scripture are often tymes noted and their errours confuted but they are neuer found fault with for refusing these bookes of scripture whereof if they had bene guilty they should not haue escaped reprehension This argument you deale not with but expound my words of the primitiue Church whereas I spake specially of the Church before Christ For though the Catholike Church neuer thought these bookes to be Canonicall as that word is properlie taken yet it vsed in some places to read them for instruction of manners Hieron praef in Solom not for confirmation of faith as S. Ierome teacheth but the olde Church of the Iewes neuer vouchsafed them so much honour as to read them publikelie And that the Catholike Church receiued not these bookes for Canonicall though it read them you haue alreadie heard the witnes of Saint Ierome who also in another place writing expressely of the Canonicall bookes Hieron in prologo Galeats excludeth these out of the Canon and calleth them Apochryphall Hereunto might I adde many testimonies of Councels and writers both olde and newe wherein appeareth what iudgement the Catholike Church had of these bookes Gregory the great whoe in your opinion was the head of the Catholike Church being Bishop of Rome Writers old and new esteeme those bookes for Apocryphall and therefore one that by likelyhood should not be ignorant of the Churches iudgement calleth the bookes of Macchabees not Canonicall yet set forth to the edification of the Church Greg. in Iob. li. 19. cap. 16. Thus for 600. yeares after Christ you see these bookes were not esteemed in the catholike Church for Canonicall which also must be thought of the rest whereof we speake seeing there is one and the same iudgement of thē all And that this iudgement hath euer since continually remayned in the Church is prooued by a c. 49. in Graeco Veronensi Damascene by b De sacram in prol li. 1. cap. 7. Hugo S. victoris by c in Leu. li. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus by d in prol in li. Apocryp Lyrane by e in prol Iosu Hugo Cardinalis and many moe whoe playnly doe affirme those bookes in the olde Testament that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphall to be so and not as you would haue them taken canonicall Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus a man of your owne side though not so absurd corrupt in iudgement as moste of you in his Hebrew Bible interlined is not affrayd thus to write of the same bookes and that not in a corner but in the very forefront and principal leafe of the booke There are added sayth he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke Bibilia Montani 1584. which the catholike Church following the canon of the Hebrews reckneth among the Apochryphall Thus it is euident that these bookes haue beene and are refused by the catholike Church and that our Church iudgeing them Apochrypall consenteth with the iudgement of the catholike Church and yours in receiuing them for canonicall haue not herein a catholike iudgement Now for Saint Iames epistle where you demaund how it may appeere that it was not refused by the wholl Church I would know whether you will say it was indeed refused by the wholl Church or no if you will so say then you shall as much discredite the authoritie thereof S. Iames epistle was neuer reiected by the wholl Church but by some particuler Churches onely as euer Luther or anie Protestant hath done For as the wholl Church neuer receiued anie booke for canonical but that which was truelie Canonicall so the wholl Church hath neuer refused any as Apocryphall but such as were indeed Apocryphall If then the wholl Church of Christ hath refused Saint Iames Epistle it will necessarilie follow that S. Iames Epistle is not canonicall But that the wholl Church euer refused it is vntrue as maybe prooued by the testimonies of writers and Histories of the Church Euse l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius that was the greatest aduersarie of it and did most sharplie censure it yet in the same place confesseth that both that and the rest were receiued and published in moste Churches Wherfore when you saie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for this part you must credit me vpon my word herein you bewray either great ignorance or desire to quarrell The difference then which I put betweene the Apocryphall bookes of the olde testament and these bookes of the newe that they were reiected by the Church wholie these not so is fullie prooued whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them then these and was therein led by learning knowledge not by fansie and opinion as you saie What learning or what diuinitie is your Church led by first to esteem of these alike then to alowe for Canonicall such bookes as you confesse and can not denie to haue beene refused by the wholl Church Where you say my reasons make moste against my selfe pag. 23. I
know not how I could haue written more plainelie more consonantlie to my selfe then I haue done But some are so froward that though it be beaten into them with hammer yet they will not seeme to vnderstand I saie Luther followed the iudgement of the auncient Church in refusing Saint Iames Epistle what maketh this against my selfe Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it Doth not Eusebius prooue it when he saith it was receiued in moste Churches Then it followeth not in al Churches And would Eusebius haue called it a Bastard if some Churches had not so accounted of it But what if some refused it doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did so you maie not thinke M. Rainolds to cast vpon vs such a miste but that we shal be hable to espie your walking along Saint Iames epistle was neuer refused of all Churches generally it was refused onelie by some Luther in refusing it agreed with the auncient Churches not with all but some as many as refused it But the greater number of Churches receiued it as Eusebius witnesseth and our Church is led by Gods spirit and true learning to follow them But for the Apochryphall bookes of the olde Testament I haue prooued sufficiently and can further declare if neede require that both the greatest part of the Church and the wholl Church hath reprooued them As for that Ierome sayth The Church readeth them it maketh litle for their credit S. Ierome a great enemy to those apocryphal bookes seeing he addeth immediatly it was to edifie the people not to confirme the authoritie ef Ecclesiasticall doctrine and that though the Church read them yet it receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures wherein he hath plainely cast them downe from that height of authoritie and maiestie whereunto you would so faine lift them vp The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose Pag. 25. Their scope was to shew that in the primitiue Church not onely some particuler persons but wholl congregations haue doubted of many bookes of Scripture and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignite of true Churches of Christ and therefore that Luther doubting or denying some of them cannot for that cause iustelie in any indifferent iudgement be condemned seeing whatsoeuer they obiect against Luther in this behalfe must light vpon the auncient Churches fathers that haue thought herein as Luther did Wherefore your conclusion that you set downe in the end of this your idle wandring talke is onelie deuised of your selfe and not maintained by vs. For you father vpon vs that we thinke we may refuse all such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of pag. 28. which is as farre from our thinking as heauen is from earth and if any man haue euer vttered such a thing as I thinke none hath it is his owne priuat conceite not the approoued and constant iudgement of our Church The bookes in the olde Testament that we refuse besides that they carie in their foreheades euident notes of Apochryphall writings haue not onelie bene doubted of but clean cast awaie by the Church of God as hath bene prooued all the bookes in the newe Testament doe we whollie admit as canonical not refusing any parcell or word thereof because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God and see no reason to mooue vs otherwise For though they haue beene doubted of in former times yet it was vpon no certaine ground and by fewe in comparison of those that receiued them vndoubtedlie Pag. 29. Thus in a word the necke is broken of al your notes that follow where in you labour to saie as litle in manie words as possiblie maie be sayd That we rente from the bodie of the Scriptures in the old Testament Toby Iudith Hester Baruch Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Maccabees the praier of Manasses the song of the three children the storie of Bell herein we doe the canonical Scriptures no iniurie deuiding from them such bookes as are not of that absolute authoritie that they which are in truth canonical maie remaine intire and wholl together no more then the shepheard doth iniurie to the sheepe in sorting the goates and other cattel from them But which of our brethren are they that ioyne to these the two bookes of Cronicles and the song of Salomon If you can name any such in these daies it will soone appeare they are not brethren of ours You will not I suppose charge vs therewith and yet perhaps you will haue men suspect vs as guiltie thereof But your boldnesse is intolerable that knowing both the common consent and practize of our Church do notwithstanding both labour to caste wrong fullie vppon vs some suspicion for refusing these and furthermore also plainlie and most falsllie avouch that we denie sundrie bookes of the new Testament setting downe in a rowe Saint Lukes Gospell M. Rainold accufeth vs for denying some Canonical books of the olde Testament diuers of the new which all the world knoweth to be a great slaunder the epistle to the Hebrews the epistle of Saint Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Saint Iobn Saint Iude the Apocalyps a parte of Saint Iohns Gospell What ment you Master Rainold thus to say and thus impudentlie to lie Are you gone to Rheames and haue you left all conscience behinde you Care you not to publish in printe to the world so great so manie so manifest vntrueths before you vse to make your sacrifice at Masse do you not vse to confesse your lies as sins and yet will you print your lies without repentance Of these our Church denieth nor one doubteth not of one If you meane some Protestants in Germanie whatsoeuer they thinke of Saint Iames S. Iude the second of Saint Peter the second and third of S. Iohn yet the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn they do receiue as canonicall Saint Lukes gospell came neuer yet in doubt or question amongst vs and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowle vntrueth If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said that the Laodicean Councel omitteth S. Lukes gospel it is too friuolous seeing that was a slippe of memorie or ouersight in him And though the Councel had so done as it hath not yet how followeth it that we therefore doe so My distinction of the wholl Church some Churhes is as cleare as the day it is to be obserued that whereas in it resteth the summe of this your second Chapter and you are desirous to haue it remooued yet you bring nothing once to stirre it That S. Iames hath bene douted of in such sorte as Iudith Macchabees the counterfaite Hester for the right Hester we embrace is prooued alreadie false and that our owne doctours refuse it is an other vntrueth For were it as you saie of that conference yet is it but one single mans sentence and that by waie of arguing
acknowledge the bookes them-selues to be canonicall wherfore in that you saie we finde not this word in the scriptures vnles you thinke no word is found in them but such as is set downe in expresse tearmes you are abused For this word is found in them by necessarie collection so be not your vaine vnwritten Traditions and therfore are neither parte nor parcell of Gods diuine word But here is by the waie to be noted how this man seeking to disprooue my comparison of the sunne pag. 36. hath suddenlie ouerthrowen the principall staie of their religion which is the visiblenes of the Church That which is knowen by sense saith he is no article of faith for these two are directly opposite Then the Church is not knowne by sense and so visiblenes is not a marke of the Church For if it be then is it not an article of faith to beleeue the Church Thus sometime you can reason well but then it is against your selfe The similitude was brought not to match our beliefe of scripture with knowledge of the sunne that as we know the one by sense so the other but that we haue certaine and vndoubted beliefe of the canonicall scriptures by themselues as we know the sunne by it selfe Your beliefe in deede of the bookes of scripture is naturall and to vse your owne example such as when you beleeue Tusculans Questions to be written by Tullie For as you are ledde thus to beleeue of this booke because it hath bene so accounted in all times by constant tradition euer since so likewise you haue no better reason to discerne the canonicall scriptures from other bookes but onely this common receiued opinion of the Church which you call Tradition We haue this as well as you and we haue also an other better and surer then this which you haue not yea which you blasphemously deride the testimony of the spirit wherby the authoritie of the scriptures is sealed in our harts and we are throughly induced to receiue them as the most blessed Testament and trueth of God For example that there is a God who created heauen and earth both the Scriptures teache and the creatures them-selues confirme soe as no man ought to stand in doubt thereof Yet notwithstanding this persuasion cannot be faithfullie setled and rooted in mans hearte vnlesse it be approoued and as it were sealed vnto vs by the holie Ghost without the confirmation whereof great doubtfulnes and distrust will arise in our mindes continuallie through the greate corruptiō of our nature Euen so that these scriptures are in trueth the verie word of God not onelie them selues doe prooue by their subiecte matter argument but also the testimony iudgement of the Church which euer so esteemed them may inuinciblie argue the same And yet for all this that we faithfullie receiue them and submit our selues vnto them as to the word of God without wandring or suspicion Gods holie spirit must inwardlie perswade our heartes that this indeede is his word and therefore of vs by all meanes to be imbraced and beleeued Thus it appeereth how false it is that you haue noted in your margent that the Protestants refusing the Church beleeued not the scriptures We refuse not the Church but we knowe the Scriptures of God haue greater credit and assurance then the onelie approbation of the Church I haue allreadie answered whatsoeuer you bring out of Augustine the Councel of Carthage or any other pag. 38.39 both in what sense those bookes of the olde Testament are called canonicall by them alsoe how the other of the new Testament were refused or receiued in times past You shall neuer be able to prooue that you set down in your margent wherein the summe of your wholl speach is briefly comprised that S. Iames epistle and the epistle to the Hebrews haue beene as much doubted of as the bookes of the olde Apochryphall Testament which the Protestans reiect The moste you can alledge is that some Churches haue doubted of those epistles but I haue before shewed that the wholl Church reiected these of the olde Testament This was mine answere to M. Martines demaunde this is mine answere still which you cannot with all your endeuour take away Something you write for a colour and fashion but you come alwaies behinde with your reckning It offendeth you that I saide we haue seene we haue confuted we haue troden vnder foote all the arguments of the Papistes and whatsoeuer they could saie Vnlesse you haue some new haruest growing which yet hath not bene reaped I might truely saie as I saide for you haue vttered all your store such as it was and we haue seene and confuted it long agoe and that by the written word of god against which no tradition no religion though neuer so auncient so vniuersall so glorious may preiudice anie thing What reasons moued you to departe from vs and become a feedes-man of the Pope I leaue to the Lord and your owne conscience for any thing that I could euer see and I haue laboured to see the trueth and what could be saide against it by the best of your side I doe with al my heart reioyce in the cause which we maintaine against you and I thinke it to be the iustest and honorablest defense that euer was vndertaken What you haue learned since you went and how substantiallie you confute my bragge as you call it shall hereafter further appeare as it hath in part alreadie done CHAP. 3. Of Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers HEre againe is repeated an other quarrel about Luther to no purpose in the world but onely to discredite him a litle with the simple sorte For our aduersaries are so wasted and spent for good reasons that whatsoeuer they light vpon though neuer so vnfit to frame good arguments of they handle it with great earnestnes like seelie fletchers that hauing no store of steles left in theire shoppe are saine to make their blots of euerie crooked sticke What maketh it againest the trueth of our reliligion if Luther preferred his owne iudgement before the fathers is our doctrine therefore false and yours true either in wholl or in parte Others desire to reape great profit of a litle labour but you are content to take a great deale of paine for no commoditie at al. I would not herin vouchsafe you an answere but that I haue respect to the readers weaknesse whoe by such slaunders may be abused Your title sheweth plainlie there is in this Chapter no truth to be looked for at your hands pag. 42. you say Luther preferred his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers and Doctors wherein you would haue men thinke he was vnmeasurablie arrogant and wilfull But Luthers spirit was farre from this insolent and immoderate presumption as maie by his owne wordes appeare which you haue noted For he saith not that he more setteth by his owne priuate iudgement then he doth by al the
fathers and Doctors as you report Luth. cont Regem Angl. fol. 342. vnius maiestatis aeter nae verbum Euangelium Dei verbū est super omnia c. but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of Diuells the word of the onely eternall maiesty the Gospell And againe immediatly he saith The word of God is aboue all the maiesty of God maketh with me that I care not though a thousand Augustines and Cyprians stood agaynst me Gods word is of more authoritie then all men or Angels Is this to set his priuate iudgement against all the fathers is this pride is this presumption must Gods word and maiestie and Gospell yeald to the iudgement of fathers be they neuer so manie This forsooth is your modestie that though the Lord hath spoken it yet if the fathers saie anie thing against it you will not prefere your iudgement grounded on the scriptures before the auncient fathers Accursed be such modestie that doth soe great iniurie and dishonour vnto god This ciuilitie towards men is treason and blasphemie towards the lord Remember what Elihu saith Iob. 32. v. 21.22 I will not now accept the person of man neither wil I give titles to man For I may not giue titles lest my maker should take me away suddenlie If this affection was in Luther as it was what fault can you finde therin You aske of me the reason why I so busilie defend Luther I aske of you the reason why you so continuallie accuse Luther If you seeke for some reasons to accuse him I cannot want better reasons to defend him your accusations being so vntrue That you say we aduance him into the place of Christe or at least among his Apostles belike you imagine that Luther is to vs as your Pope is to you whome you more esteeme and honour then Christe and all his Apostles For saie they what they will their saying hath litle force or authoritie if it like not your holie father but his saying must preuaile whatsoeuer they saie to the contrarie You thinke it good reason I should giue ouer all defense of Luther seing he bare extreame hatred as you say against the Sacramentaries here you bring in much to that purpose which yet you know is not the matter you tooke in hand But it is alwaies the propertie of such discreet and worthie writers whatsoeuer they finde though from the cause to hale it in by some meanes in one place or other I answere in a word Luther dissented bitterlie from Zuinglius and O Ecolampadius in the matter of the sacrament as it falleth out often times that sharpe contentions may arise amongst Godlie and learned men yet it is no cause why we should not answere in Luthers behalfe when he is wrongfullie charged by you Therefore you come to scanne my defense of Luther particularlie pag. 48. and finde your selfe occupied in deuising diuers senses of Luthers words and then disputing against them First if all the fathers teach one thing and bring scriptures for them Luther the contrarie bring scriptures for him whether in this case Luther may preferre his iudgement before all the fathers This is not the case M. R. that Luther ment you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose Next then you put case If a thousand Augustines Churches teache some doctrine citing no text for it and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense against the same the matter is not in citing textes but in deliuering the doctrine that is approoued by the text Then leaue your childish trifling and take Luther as he meant If Augustine or Cyprian or any other father maintaine any thing against Gods word Luther or any other minister of Christ may in such case preferre his iudgement warranted by the word of God before theirs If you denie this you are not worthie to be called a Christian and yet closelie you doe denie it in that you reprooue Luther and condemne him for saying the same And where you saie I can bring no instance that euer the auncient fathers did so haue you forgotten what fell out in the Councell of Nice Socrat. l. 1. c. 11. when the fathers agreeing to dissolue the marriage of ministers were withstood by Paphnutius One man maintaining the trueth of Gods word may lawfully dissent from others although neuer so many August cont petil l. 3. c. 6. and yealded in the ende Here one Paphnutius iudgment was preferred before al the other three hundred fathers And so often times the iudgement of many hath beene corrected by one S. Aug. saith whether of Christe or of his Church or of any other thing that appertayneth to our faith and life I will not say we not to be compared to him that sayd though we but as he added If an Angell from heauen shall preach any thing besides that ye haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures lette him be accursed If we maie accurse them how many and whosoeuer they be that teach contrary to the Propheticall and Apostolicall scriptures then may we preferre our iudgement in such cases before them Saint Augustines words you see are very sharpe but he learned thus to speake of the Apostle him selfe August epi. 19. In an other place Saint Augustine saith For all these fathers yea aboue all these the Apostle Paul offereth himselfe I flee to him I appeale to him from all writers that thinke otherwise This was S. Augustine bolde to write euen to S. Ierome and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancie or heresie for the same such accoumpte then must be made of the trueth that we must stand with it against al the world and not for reuerence of mens persons giue it ouer or betraie it or be afraid to defend it If this be so as you will not I am sure for shame or feare denie openlie then haue you nothing to burthen Luther in this behalfe When you say Though the fathers in the Councells of Nice Ephesus Chalcedon had alleadged no direct and euident place against Arius Nestorius Eutyches yet the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues onelie vpon the catholike and vniuersall faith of the Churches before them it is boldly and bluntlie spoken These godly and catholike fathers assembled in Councel against those heritikes confuted them by the authoritie of Gods word and as it were cut the throte of their heresies with the sworde of the spirit This was onelie the weapon then vsed and with this they preuayled The councels and fathers confuted all Heretikes by the scriptures as likwise haue all other godlie councels euer done against all heretikes and enemies of the trueth For in Religion there is no trueth but grounded vppon scriptures no errour or heresie but repugnant to scriptures no heretikes but refuted by scriptures They dealt not against the heretikes as you imagine omitting scriptures and grounding vpon the faith of Churches
three notable articles pag. 142. c. out of auncient writers against the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge first of the Popes supremacy Where good Reader I pray the consider the wrangling and cauilling spirit of this sophister Such tricks of vntrue dealing hath M. R. vsed many Master Iewell in that sermon wherein he bad defiance to the Popish sectaries speaking against their priuate masse and single communion and hauing prooued by euident testimonies of antiquitie the contrary vse and practise of the Church in the end nameth sundry Bishops and Doctors of the Church of whome he saith we haue learned these heresies as our aduersaries account them Among other he reckeneth Anacletus and Sixtus that were Bishops of Rome Master Rainolds taking vpon him to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie by the same witnesses that M. Iewell here alledgeth bringeth in the decretall epistles set forth vnder the names of these two Byshops which no man of wit or iudgement can once imagine to haue bene written by them they are so foolish vnlearned but yet the Church of Rome maketh no small reckening of them being the best euidences she hath to shew for her vnlawfull tyrannical vsurpation To what purpose M.R. doe you obiect those Epistles in the cause of supremacie against M. Iewel speaking of priuate masse and halfe communion Haue you thus solde your selfe to deuise crafty sleights that you may abuse the simplicity of your Reader Master Iewell speaketh of one thing for proofe thereof appealeth to those two Bishops amonge others you bring against him their forged writings for an other matter Replie Arciela 4. Diuis 3. wherein Master Iewell himselfe hath alreadie shewed his iudgement of them But you saie Pag. 145. what other bookes hath he seene of theirs beside these epistles And what though he hath not sene any what though there are none to be seene might not he therfore say that we haue learned of them this doctrine which no man can doubt but they followed and practised and left to their successours behinde them for it being the cleare doctrine of Christ and his Apostles those godlie and faithfull Bishops so neare the Apostles time departed not from it De consec dict 2 peracta And a Bishop of Rome Calixtus by name reporteth that the Apostles ordained and it was the practise of the Romane Church that after consecration all should communicate vnlesse they would incurre excommunication It is but losse of time to answere such palpable cauillation as this booke hath almost nothing els And were it not for regarde I haue to the godlie that desire the aduersarie may be answered though neuer so vnworthie of answere in respect of himselfe might be offended if he should passe without answere I could easilie haue suffered M.R. to haue enioyed quietlie the fruits of his labours and otherwise spent my time more profitablie to my selfe and others Next in like manner S. Leo and S. Gregorie two other Bishops of Rome Pag. 147. c. but long after are obiected and M. R. translateth out of the Centuries a great deale to shewe that by confession of the more famous learned Protestants as he saith the Romane sea had primacie ouer all Churches in Christendome True it is that the Centurie writers in that Chapter doe largelie and plainlie discouer the mystery of iniquity Cent. 5. cap. 7. Col. 774. c. that in those daies did mightelie worke for the obtaining of that vniuersall primacie which afterwards with much endeuour was gotten And as the Church of Rome was then in great estimation and authoritie farre beyond other Churches so the Bishops of that sea vsed all occasion to encrease the credite and prerogatiue thereof especially this Leo and Gregorie also not a litle All this as it is in the Centuries discoursed we confesse and withall iustlie mislike and condemne that ambition in those Bishops but what gather you hereof M. R. for your purpose doth this prooue the Popes supremacie Great and many vntrueths auouched by M.R. doth this disprooue Master Iewells chalenge Doe the learned Protestants also confesse the same what notable and shameles vntruthes are these Not one of all these examples alledged doth argue the Popes vniuersall power or headship ouer Christs Church nor commeth neere vnto it That Leo calleth it the chiefest Church that he requireth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople to make relation vnto him if anie matter of controuersie should arise that he willeth Maximus Archbishop of Antioche to write to the sea Apostolike how the Churches there encrease that he reprooued other Bishops if they did ought amisse that he appointed in some places orders and ceremonies and did these and manie other such things as in his epistles is manifest although he tooke vpon him more then he might or ought for aduauncement of his owne seat encroched much vpon the libertie of other Churches yet neuer ment he to make himselfe vniuersall Bishop Though Leo delt in moe matters then appertained to him yet was he farre from the top of the papal supremacie and head of the Church which your Pope claimeth and M. Iewell denieth This was his endeauour to lift his chaire aboue the rest to be accounted a chiefe Bishop to be had in greatest regard to procure to his seate a principall reuerence to obtaine priuiledges and prerogatiues aboue others but of this pontifical power vniuersal iurisdiction which afterwards your Popes vsurped he neuer dreamed for ought that you haue alledged or can furthermore alledge out of his Epistles And though you could what had you greatlie gained against M. Iewell who requireth a lawfull and irrefragable testimonie his being partiall as in his owne matter and for his owne commoditie Yet how farre Leo was from the papall supremacie may in one example appeare that he had not authoritie to call a councell but was faine to be an humble suter to the Emperour Epist 33. that he would by his commandement summone a councell of Bishops in Italie which yet he obtained not that the same Leo fell on his knees before Valentinian Leo was of mean iurisdiction and authoritie in respect of the pope to haue a councell that a Councell by the Emperour Martian being called at Chalcedon he laboured instantlie to haue it somewhat differred vntil a more conuenient time could not preuaile Doth it not euidently hereby appeare that he was not accounted neither by the Emperour nor the Byshops of Christendom Head of the Church vniuersall Bishop And this is the thing in controuersie wherof you haue not shewed anie proofe as yet for all your childish bragging and what you will hereafter doe I need not greatlie stand in doubte For your demonstration following which you full ignorantlie and vainelie commend Pag. 150. comparing it to the brightnes of the sunne in a sommers daie hath no light at all in it to shew that thing which you haue taken in hand to prooue
no more then the moone in the wane giueth light to passengers at midnight And doubtles vnles the Lord had in his displeasure towards you bereaued you of common iudgement and reason you could not yeald your vnderstanding captiue to such loose and light perswasion The question in controuersie is whether the Pope were acknowledged for head of the vniuersall Church within six hundred yeares after Christ Cent. 5. p. 781.782 This you say appeareth by the confession of the Centurye writers and so you translate out of them many authorities which being all put in one conclude nothing to this purpose in the end They shew how the Popes haue laboured to get superioritie to themselues especially in the example of Leo who as he was learned and eloquent and stoutlie mainteined the Catholike faith against Eutyches so is he trulie noted of ambition more then beseemed the minister of Christ But admitting the Popes testimonie for the Popes primacie what haue you found in the Centuries against Master Iewell that they warned Bishops of other prouinces to come to generall councels this is not the thing we require Let them write to whome and whither they list this officious writing prooueth not vniuersalitie and supremacie of power as any man maie easilie vnderstand That Leo could not appoint a Councell that he sued to the Emperour to call a Councel that the Councell was gathered by the Emperours not by the Popes authoritie I haue alreadie shewed What maketh then the writing of a fewe letters to prooue the Popes power in summoning councells that they were presidents in generall councels And can you or dare you auouch that this was so in all generall councells And though it were what matter maketh it for your purpose A generall councell must haue a president which presidencie if it were graunted to the Bishop of Rome in respecte of his place which was the first amongst Bishops will you of your wisdome hereof gather that he was Vniuersall Bishop and head of the Church A senslesse and franticke conclusion That he confirmed generall Councells This is like the rest a worthy reason forsooth All Bishops were bound to maintaine and approoue the godly decrees of councells that so heresies might be repressed and the puritie of religion preserued Is it then a great maruell if the Bishop of Rome that was accounted first and chiefe confirmed good councels and disanulled wicked whoe is he that hath the reason of a man that will hereof conclude in sadnes and sobriety the popes supremacy If M.R. be blinded it is no wonder All this and ten times as much can not prooue that the Pope is the head of Christs Church or that he was so esteemed in the primitiue age and therefore that you alleadge out of Luther that before Bonifacius the third in the daies of wicked Phocas the Emperour the Bishops of Rome had no greater authoritie then other Bishops is true For albeit they had gotten greater priuiledges of honour and other preferments partlie through the reuerent opinion which the Emperours Bishops had of them partlie by their owne seeking as appeareth in stories moste euidentlie yet soueraintie of power and iurisdiction ouer the wholl Church had they none vntill Phocas the tyrant bestowed it vpon Boniface the Pope a worthy founder of the Popes Antichristian supremacie How Leo behaued himselfe in magnifiing his owne dignitie aboue measure pag. 154. c. is to plaine by his writings so as although he thought nothing lesse then of that pontificall supremacie and authoritie which afterward in that seat of Antichrist was erected yet hath his pride bene iustlie and worthelie reprooued for claiming more honour then belonged vnto him But you must remember that all authoritie and honour is not that vniuersall supremacie of power which your Pope chalengeth and vsurpeth the which neither Leo desired nor yet Gregorie the great who succeeded him in that sea almost two hundred yeares after did exercise for anie thing that you haue alledged in proofe thereof The Centurie Collectours declare indeed how that mystery of iniquity wrought and encreased then in the Romane sea Centur. 6. p. 425. in that the Bishops thereof tooke vpon them more rule and authoritie ouer their brethren then they ought and namelie this Gregorie in whome the vertue godlines of Romane Bishops died But haue you found in the Centuries such plaine proofes ot the Popes supremacie as you affirme First you bring nothing but the speaches or practises of Gregorie Gregorie the great was no Pope such as the lâ—tter popes haue bene Regist lib. 11. â—p 54. who was a Bishop of Rome secondly you can not thereof gather that he was vniuersall Bishop or head of the Church For that he calleth the Apostolicall sea head of all Churches he meaneth nothing else but that it was the chiefe Churhc Lib. 7. ep 62. which is confessed That he saith the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolicall sea whoe denieth this but what subiection meane you M. R that the Romane Church had power ouer the Church of Constantinople to commaund ordaine disanull at her pleasure that is vtterlie false and disprooued by all stories that haue written testifiing that the Church of Constantinople accounted her selfe equall in all priuiledges too the Romane saue only that the Roman in order was the first That he intermedled in the doings of certaine Bishops of diuerse prouinces it is euident but not in all Churches of all prouinces ouer the world For the Church of Christendome was then deuided into partes the same were assigned to the gouernment of Patriarches The Romane prouince was greatest containing the Churches of the west wherein Gregorie had authoritie not by Gods worde but by appointment of man and yet his authoritie was no other but the same that the other Patriarchs practised in their prouinces namelie S. Chrysostome long before Gregorie ouer Thrace al Asia and Pontus as Theodoretus writeth Theod. lib. 5. cap. 28. What can you alledge more for Gregorie then I can for Chrysostome Gregory reprooued corrected Bishops of Cicilie Africke Spaine Chrysostome punished and deposed Bishops of Thrace of Pontus of Asia Hereof is concluded no lesse the supremacie of ChrysostoÌ„me then of Gregorie such notable demonstrations can you make Yea how much S. Gregorie alwaies abhorred that tyrannicall supremacie Pag. 159. c. which your Pope of long time hath vsurped ouer the Church S. Gregorie was not onelie himselfe no vniuersall pope but hath also in plaine words condemned both that office title vniuersallie is manifest in that he so often so bitterlie inueicth against the name of vniuersall Bishop which he would not haue done condemning it whollie as most wicked vnlawfull ambitious profane Antichristian if he had thought his owne episcopall gouernment and iurisdiction had extended ouer all Churches For as Iohn of Constaninople chalenged that name in the same sense meaning doth Gregorie reiect it but Iohn
meant onelie thereby to make himselfe a chiefe Bishop ouer all Bishops and to bring vnder his iurisdiction the wholl Church of Christ and therefore it is euident that S. Gregorie vtterlie misliked that anie Bishop whosoeuer should haue an vniuersall authority ouer the whol Church which is to bring the Church in subiection vnder him That this was the meaning of that title of vniuerssall Bishop S. Gregorie himselfe doth testifie in these words who by the name of vniuersall Lib. 4. epist 38. goeth about to make subiect to himselfe all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirme professe defend proclaime by all meanes possible that all the members of Christ must be subiect to him and that no hope of saluation remaineth for anie but such as continue in his obedience Then denie if you can but that the selfe same authoritie which Saint Gregory reprooued in Iohn of Constantinople your popes haue approoued in themselues euen this last 13. Gregorie who latelie deceased and therefore by iudgement of S. Gregorie manie hundred yeares agoe they are Antichristian Bishops The popes of Rome with their vniuersall supremacie long since condemned by Saint Gregorie a Bishop of Rome and not Catholike pastors of Christes Church Wrangle all ye can S. Gregorie hath plainlie condemned your Popes for taking vpon them both the name and office of vniuersall Bishops Andreas Fricius whom here againe you alledge I haue not to deale with all what thing was meant by this name of vniuersall Bishop may better be learned of S. Gregorie himselfe whoe knewe best the meaning thereof If you require further proofe consider that S. Gregorie reporteth also that the councell of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo Lib. 4. cap. 32. but he would not accept of it Did the Councell meane to take from all other Bishops of the world yea themselues all bishoplie grace and power what madnes is it thus to thinke what impudencie to stand in maintenance thereof as you doe Futher when the Bishop of Alexandria Eulogius in a letter called Gregorie vniuersal Pope Lib. 7. epist 30. Indict 1. meant he to depriue him-selfe of all bishoplie authoritie Nothing lesse And yet Saint Gregorie reprooueth him for so writing and will not suffer himselfe to be so called The name then signifieth that vniuersall authoritie ouer all Bishops and Christians which Iohn claimed and your Popes obtained and long practized and will not yet giue ouer This was vnlawfull in Iohn this Gregorie condemned not onely in others but in the Bishops of Rome also therefore your Popes by witnes of S. Gregorie a Pope are clearely conuicted of vnlawful and Antichristian vsurpation If your Pope refuseth this name of vniuersal Bishop why doth Bellarmine his greatest diuine Couâ—reon 3. Quest 4. recken this for one of the Popes names of dignitie but chieflie why doth the Pope mislike the name and allowe the thing signified by the name Concerning the two other articles pag. 164. c. of Reall presence and sacrifice you are content to saie litle which in effect is nothing For what haue you brought to prooue either of these your opinions you tell vs Saint Gregorie was a Priest and said Masse according to your popish fashion but whe will beleeue your report you haue tolde vs so manie vntruthes That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies that Melancthon saieth he horriblie profaned the communion that Illyricus rehearseth out of a popish writer certaine of his miracles about the sacrament that Paulus Vergerius hath written a booke against his trifles fables that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Austen the monke whome he sent into England that the Bishop of Winchester M. Horne calleth this Austen a bussard It is not Austen that he calleth so but Bonifacius whome they name the Apostle of Germanie what maketh all this I beseech you against Master Iewells chalenge how conclude you hereof your Real presence or your sacrifice of the Masse surely your masters that set you on worke and made you an instrument to publish these thinges abused you much that you might abuse others more To Luthers iudgement of Saint Augustine pag. 166. that after the Apostles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor then he I willinglie subscribe but Luther accuseth the sacramentaries as he calleth them for mangling and abusing him in the question of Reall presence herein I haue nothing to answere in Luthers defense Saint Augustine teacheth no otherwise of Christes presence in the sacrament then we do as by the large treatises that haue bene written of this matter doth appeare yea neither Zuinglius nor Caluin nor anie other of our side hath more fullie and directlie written a gainst the Real and corporal presence of Christ in the supper then S. Austen hath in sundrie places That Luther iudged otherwise it was his errour which he retained of his olde leauen wherewith in time of papistrie his iudgement was corrupted Hereof what argument can you frame against M. Iewell some thing would you faine saie but your words haue no pith of reason in them Saint Chrysostome you saie hath written six bookes of Priesthood pag. 168. and none of ministerhood verilie this is a verie poore argument for the sacrifice of your Masse If this reason holde from the authoritie of Chrysostome I trust the like will not be denied taken from the authority of the scriptures In the new Testament Ministers are named six and six times priests in your sense neuer therefore no Priesthood remaineth and so by consequence no sacrifice But concerning the name of Priest how it hath bene vsed of the auncient writers not in the proper and naturall sense but after the common custome of speach I haue alreadie before declared Thus haue you M. Rainolds vttered all your skill in confutation of the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge Howbeit if D. Harding were aliue I suppose he would thinke you had deserued small thankes Medle no more M. Rainolds in this matter the more ye stirre the lesse ye preuaile your learning is not much your iudgement is lesse you are but a weake instrument to deale with him whom D. Harding could not match M. Iewells chalenge is prooued wise true learned to the praise of Gods trueth shame of papistrie and worthie commendation of that famous Bishop whose memorie is euerlasting and most honourable among the godlie CHAP. 8. Of Bezaes translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the Reall presence MAster Rainolds leaueth M. Iewell pag. 170. c. and proceedeth to maintaine a quarell of M. Martine against Bezaes traÌ„slation of certaine wordes vttered by the Apostle Saint Peter and recorded by S. Luke Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanitie to spend manie words about so small a matter and therefore suffering this man that knoweth no measure either of speaking or holding his peace to talke his pleasure I will herein vse no more wordes then the thing requireth that is as few
much rather against it For of this it plainlie appeareth at the first to euerie one that in S. Ieromes daies the vulgar translations were greatlie corrupted and that S. Ierome reformed the same by the Hebrew and Greeke text In S. Ieromes daies the Hebrewe and Greeke text acknowledged more sincere then all translations which argueth that the text was in those daies generallie without contradiction acknowledged to be purer then all translations whatsoeuer Then if such corruption crept into the Hebrewe and Greeke texte as you affirme it was after S. Ieromes daies but when in what manner you cannot tell Againe that you saie this edition of S. Ierome was by Damasus supreame authoritie commended to the Church maie easilie be disprooued or if he laboured to haue it in the Latine Churches receiued yet could he not bring it to passe Ieromes translation not especiallie vsed in the Roman Church for two hundred yeares after Ierome Greg. in epist ad Leand. For both other Churches vsed it not and in the Church of Rome it was not in anie singular estimation for the space of two hundred yeares after S. Ierome and Damasus as we may vnderstand by S. Gregorie whoe writeth that in his daies the Romane Church vsed two translations an old and a new This newe is the same which now is called the olde The name of High Priest if you thinke it maketh anie thing for the Popes supreame authoritie you are abused through your owne ignorance It was a name belonging as well to euerie Bishop especiallie of the chiefe Churches as to Damasus But of such speaches you can be content to take aduantage to the abusing of the simple Foure thinges doe you propound to your selfe to prooue concerning your vulgar translation First that I haue saide nothing to purpose against it Second that it is purer then the fountaines Third that although it hath some small faults yet absolutelie it hath no errour touching either doctrine or manners Last that to refuse it and appeale to the Greeke and Hebrewe is the highe waie to deniall of all faith to Apostasie and Atheisme These thinges Master Rainolds hath thus deuided not amisse now let vs examine his proofes of these points for performance of his promise First you saie that in commending the fountaines so much pag. 297. I have spoken nothing against you but rather much and all against my selfe If you can make your saying good herein we shall haue cause much to commend your witt and learning The reason that you haue brought is by you vttered in these words following For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Ierome and S. Ambrose and the Church then troubled with great diuersitie of their Latine Bibles reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals and we now finde those fountaines and originals differing from that reformed bible whie shall we not conclude that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted And what cause haue you thus to conclude where haue you learned to make such conclusions thinke you that this conclusion is ought worth Let vs waie it a litle together Master Rainolds and then shall we better esteeme the value of it First you graunt the fountains were pure in S. Ierome and S. Ambrose daies the translations corrupt Doubtles it greeueth you to confesse thus much but the necessitie of confessing the same enforced you Then foure hundred yeares after Christ by M. Rainolds confession the fountaines of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte were pure The fountaines of the Hebrew and Greeke text pure for the space of four hundred yeares after Christ by the aduersaries confession and all translations were reformed by them Now let vs knowe some certentie of the great alteration that followed What cause was there that the fountaines and originals remained pure so long and then after began to be so shamefullie and vniuersallie corrupted Againe what was the cause that the latine translations were so greatly corrupted for so long a space and neuer since could be corrupted Tell vs some truth shewe some reason alledge your authorities speake to purpose and leaue these vntoward presumptions The same meanes that kept the text pure all that while whie might it not continew in times following if you laie the fault of corrupting the fountaines vpon the Iewes as you doe were there no Iewes in the world for the space of foure hundred yeares after Christ or were they either vnwilling or vnable to attempt such a matter it cannot be denied but that within the compasse of those yeares the Iewes had as great opportunities and greater to haue performed so wicked an enterprise then since that time can be deuised Their malice against Christian religion was no lesse then the number of their learned Rabbines was as great then the troubles of the Church of Christ by reason of the great and general persecutions gaue better occasion to them then therefore if this corruption hath thus mightilie preuailed in the text may it please you to enforme vs how and when it began which request ought not in anie wise seeme vnreasonable vnto you For if you maie demaund of vs the time wherein corruption beganne to enter into the Church and otherwise wil not beleeue vs that there is anie in the Church may not we likewise require of you by as good reason what time this foule corruption wherof you speake first began to sease vpon the texte of scripture and if you cannot tell how may you looke to be herein beleeued The Iewes must be charged for all and the hatred which the Iewes beare to our religion must be an argument that now all is corrupted in the Hebrew Saint Ierome saide he was ashamed to see the Christians thus vnworthily and vntrulie charge the Hebrew veritie with corruption Hâ—eron in c. 17. Ierem. And so may we also trulie saie that it is a shame for these men to slaunder the Hebrew texte and to accuse the Iewes of that fault whereof they are not guiltie for ought that can be prooued in this behalfe against them August de civit Dei lib. 15. cap. 13. And S. Augustine entreating at large of a place read otherwise in the Greeke and Latine translations then in the Hebrew text not onelie dischargeth the Iewes from all suspicion of corrupting their bookes but giueth this rule that whensoeuer there is found any variety or difference in the texts we should geue greatest credit to that tongue out of which the interpreters haue made their translation Vpon which place Lewes Viues writeth thus Ludou Viues ibid. This same doth Ierome auouch and this reason it selfe teacheth there is none of sound iudgement that thinketh otherwise But in vaine doth the consent of good witts thus thinke For stout senslesnes as it were an hil is opposed against it not because these men are ignorant of those tongues for Augustine knew not the Hebrew the Greeke but meanlie but there is not in
had recourse to the Greeke copies and haue prescribed the same rule to be followed continuallie and Saint Hierome himselfe reformed the latin translations according to the Greeke then extant read in the Greeke Churches Thus then you maie perceaue that to be constant in the profession of Gods trueth and to be carefull to keepe the text of scripture from corruption are two diuerse things which you might haue soone considered if you had but looked backe to that your selfe haue written before For these are euen the same Grecians whose exemplars Saint Ierome followed in correcting the Euangelists and which he calleth waters of the moste pure fountaine and sundrie wise commendeth Hieron Marcellae For proofe that the Hebrew fountaines are by the Iewes corrupted pag. 303. c. you bring vs forth a place out of the prophet Esaie Chap. 9. First in that I say the Iewes haue not corrupted the hebrew text I say no other thing then that which the moste learned Papists of all times haue affirmed M.R. in this controuersie hath his master papists aduersaries to him namelie Isaac Clarius Valla Andradius Montanus Lucas Bellarmine and manie moe and that by the same argument which my selfe vsed that then this corruption moste certainelie would haue appeared in those places that directlie concerne our Sauiour Christ amongst the which this that you mention here is notable And although I wil not deny but that the Iewes might haue some purpose to wrest it from the sense that it might be aplied to any rather then to Christ yet the corruption is not so greate as you would haue it seeme consisting not in change of any letter but only of the pointes The letters remaining without alteration whatsoeuer is amisse in the pointes may easilie be corrected Furthermore if we reade the word with the same pointes which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles whereby the verbópassiue is turned into an actiue yet the place notwithstanding prooueth inuinciblie the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ For as well doth it confirme this doctrine if we read Vajikrae vocabit that is God the father shall call his name wonderfull c as if we read Vajikkare vocabitur his name shall be called wonderfull Although you that take vpon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language should not haue beene ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue That the Iewes refer the last name onely which is the Prince of peace Sar-shaelom to the Childe borne all the rest going before to God him selfe this I graunt to be a malitious construction of the wordes but no corruption of the text One thing is it to expound the wordes in a wronge sense an other to falsifie the wordes You hoped no doubte to haue gained much more by this place then will any waies be yelded vnto you for that you adde of the Churches authoritie which you call the supreame grounde and stay is nothing worth being an olde worne and wasted sentence brought in rashelie without credite or countenaunce The wordes are plaine of them-selues and haue in them authoritie and stay sufficient to prooue the trueth of Christs diuinitie and to confute the enemies thereof An other such place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie pag. 306. Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt may be imagined but cannot by euident demonstration be prooued ijcro What mooued S. Ierome to translate thus vocabunt eum They shall call him I will not dispute The reason might be in the variety and incertentie of poynts or in the ambiguous acception of the word But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with so foule a corruption of this place only to discredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ he must remember that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number according to the Hebrewe now extant In comment ad Hier. ca. 23. as S. Ierom also maketh mention yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures being as many write wonderfullie assisted gouerned in that work and not smallie had of auncient time in regard And this was long before our sauiour Christ was come in the flesh and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for such a cause as you imagine vnlesse you will saie the Iewes in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diuerse hundred yeares before Christ was borne and before they had cause to conceiue any malice or displeasure against our sauiour Christ And so your Lyranes surmise is plainelie disprooued in which you rest your selfe as in a certaine veritie and vpon his worde are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poore Iewes for committing a crime which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of Neither maketh it lesse for Christs diuinitie to read it vocabit He shall cal him that is God the father or euerie faithful man shal call him The Lord our righteousnes then if we reade vocabunt They shall call him the Lord our righteousnes And Saint Hierome as you might haue seene had you looked on the place your selfe translateth the text after this manner Et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum sine vocabit eum Dominus iustus noster wherein he sheweth plainelie there is no substance of matter more in the one then the other If this be so shameful so notable a corruption as you in countenaunce and shew pretende S. Hierome was greatly ouerseene that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie but vsed the same also in the text it selfe But what wil you say to those learned men whoe hauing more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you Master Rainolds or els your Lyra thoug a Iewe borne haue translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles no otherwise then your selues would haue it to be translated I meane Arias Montanus and Vatablus as in their translations you may finde whoe if they haue rightelie and well translated the worde then may you see that no such wickednesse hath bene practized in this place as you haue fathered vpō the Iewes And furthermore compare an other like place in the same Prophet Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this worde is vsed in the singular number without controuersie the Prophet speaking againe of the same matter and almoste whollie in the same wordes Thus you may vnderstand that the integritie of this place may be auouched and the Iewes deliuered from your vniust accusation many waies One example more you giue mean an other kinde Pag. 310. wherein no kinde of corruption appeereth at all In the Prophet Esay chap. 53. vers 8. the old latine translation standeth thus propter scelus populi mei percussi eum For the sinne of my people haue I smitten him The Hebrew text is something otherwise Miphshahh 〈◊〉 mi negahh lamo propter defectionem populi
the vulgare translation corruptions of all sorts great plentie yea almoste innumerable therefore that your argument against the fountaines is absurd Infinite notorious corruptions in the vulgar latine translation authorized by the Tridentine assem blie and moste vnreasonable to condemne them because of some faultes imagined whereas you approue a latine edition ten times worse then you can once with shew of trueth suspect them to be In the first Chapter of Genesis v. 30. certaine wordes are wanting in your vulgar Edition Gen. 1. v. 30. which are not onelie in all Hebrewe bookes but in the Greeke translation aso which is by manie hundred yeares far more ancient then the latine and therfore if your latine wil be tried by the verdit of these two witnesses it shal be conuicted of manifest corruption For where the Prophet Moses plainlie writeth that as the Lord had giuen to man for his meat euerie herbe and tree that yeeldeth fruite so he had also prouided â—uerâ—e greene herbe to be meat for the beasts birds Col jerck â—â—eseb creeping things these words so materiall and necessarie are in your latine bookes no where to be found How can you thinke to excuse this from corruption In the second Chap. v. 8. Gen. 2.8 the scripture saith both in the hebrew and greeke text that God had planted a garden in the East Mikkedent and so is it vnderstood of the learned writers that the garden wherein Adam for a time remained was sited in the east but your translator maketh the Prophet to speake otherwise A Principio that the Lord God had planted a garden of pleasure from the beginning Is this kinde of translating to be allowed in the word of God I thinke none of sounde iudgement good conscience will so esteeme In the thirde of Genes v. 15. a Capitall and intollerable corruption hath beene committed and still is continued and maintained by you in the wordes Gen. 3.15 wherein the Lord made vnto man the first promise of that redemption which should be wrought by our Sauiour Christ and in which the summe of the Gospell and all hope of our saluation is contained that the seede of the woman should bruise the head of the Serpent For thus speaketh the Lord to the Serpent Hâ—â— I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman and betweene thy seed and her seede He shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heele Thus hath the Prophet Moses reported the wordes of almightie God and so haue the seuentie interpreters translated them according to the Hebrew originall veritie Which notwithstanding in steede of He shall bruise thine heade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your latine translation hath Shee shall bruise thine head Ipsae and this Shee is meant the blessed virgine A foule a daungerous a damnable corruption thus defended and expounded Yea the verie enemies them selues that haue neuer so litle conscience and feare of God doe confesse that it ought to be redde otherwise then it is in your latine translation seeing it disagreeth from the Hebrewe and some auncient copies also of the vulgar latine edition haue ipse Andrad lib. 4. Defens Trid. and not ipsa Yet howsoeuer not onlie the Hebrew and Greeke texts lead vs to the true meaning of Gods promise made to mankinde in Iesus Christ yea and further some copies of the vulgar translation agree therewith neuertheles the Church of Rome that you may the better perceiue whose Church it is not regarding al this embraceth alloweth maintaineth the euident corruption as as you may finde not onelie in the Latine bookes of the vulgare edition reformed according to the Tridentine Councels appointment but also in the Catechisme set forth by authoritie of the same Councell Catechis Trident in artic Et in Iesum Christum and in the bookes of sundrie Papists that haue willinglie soulde them selues to loue and defend all Antichristes doctrine In the margent of your Bibles is printed for a fashion the true reading howbeit this not onelie excuseth nothing your willfull maintenance of detestable corruption but may rather make the same appeere more odious to all the faithfull For if you can set the true worde in the margent why might you not receiue it also into the text but onelie for that you are determined alreadie to be ashamed of nothing that may any waies bring aduantage to your corruptions though it be to the certaine euerlasting damnation of your soules And what goâ—lie man shall patientlie indure this blasphemie in your English transalation of the olde testament when it commeth forth where our comforte and hope hath bene that he who is the womans seed our blessed Lord and sauiour Christ should bruise the serpents head now we must turne it another waie and say thus she shal bruise the serpents heade If still you will speake in defense of this corruption you shal but barke against heauen it is too manifest too hainous too impudent In the fourth of Genes v. 8. Genes 4.8 your latine translation hath these wordes Let vs goe forth â—â—â—odiamur 〈…〉 in Hebr. question which are not in the Hebrew text nor yet in the Chaldee paraphrast S. Ierome hath giuen a note vpon them that they are superfluous and ought to be remoued And in the 15. verse of this Chapter one Hebrew word â—aken that signifieth wherefore or doubtles is vntruelie rendred by your translator thus Nequaquâ—â—â—ra fieâ—â— it shall not be so For the Lord said not that none should kill Kain but that whosoeuer killed him he should be punished seuen fold It maie not be graunted to anie translator of scripture thus to thrust in words at his pleasure whereby the sense is manifestlie changed In the sixt Chapter and 5. verse Gen. 6.5 where the Lord complaineth of mans corrupte nature and saith that the verie frame of the thoughts of his hart is onelie euill alwaies your translatour hath left out two words of great moment frame and onely jetsee rak and so like wise in the eight Chapter following verse 21. Gen. 8.21 where againe the Lord setteth forth the wickednes of mans corrupt nature and saith that the imagination of mans hart is euill raâ—â— your translator of his owne head hath put into the text a pretie word and soe maketh God to speake otherwise then he spake In malaâ— proua that it is prone to euill Who seeth not that by this worde is diminished that corruption and sinfulness whereof almightie God accuseth mankinde and wherewith he declareth mans hart to be replenished from his infancie This translation liketh you well because it doth not so fullie bewraie the infection of originall sinne as the true text of scripture doth therefore not so plainlie confuteth your heresie of freewill in man to please God before he be regenerate In the 9. Gen. 9.6 Chap. 6. verse where God ordaineth an euerlasting law
make such things as are spoken in some respecte seeme to be vttered without exception as in this place and many others may be seene Your assertions are now to be examined by which you labour to strengthen the Remish slaunder of corruption against the Greeke testament Pag. 363. Three in number haue you brought of no importaunce as shall appeere so that we may easilie thinke they are indeed your owne The first is the difference of our Greeke copies now M. Rai argumēts against the newe testamente in Greeke confuted from the olde It may perhaps I graunt be prooued that in the Greeke copies of the new testament some diuersitie may be founde So was there much greater difference in the latine translations as your selfe cannot deny Then what maketh this for the latine translation against the Greeke fountaine if you say the latine was corrected I answere it was indede corrected but according to the Greeke and the Greeke nowe remaineth still which maie be prooued to be not onelie as pure as the latine but purer by many degrees For what reason haue you to saie that the latine translation euer since the correction hath bene preserued faithfullie without corruption but the Greeke text it selfe after which it was corrected became forthwith distayned and replenished with grosse corruptions Our Greeke testament for the moste parte and in a manner euerie where agreeth fullie with that copie which the auncient Greeke Church vsed and which therefore vndoubtedlie was the true originall Greeke text of the newe testament And as the olde latine Church reformed her translations according to the copies vsed in the Greek Churches so shall it neuer be prooued but that the same Greeke copies haue continued still as free from corruption as the latine translations haue wherefore the difference of our Greeke copies nowe from some olde maketh nothing against the puritie and authoritie of our Greeke Testament vnles you can shewe by euident proofe that the Greeke Testament nowe extant differeth from that which the Greeke Churches in times past generallie vsed Some difference there might be I denie not in such infinite multitude of copies But what then is no copie now therefore to be alowed Maie we not also shewe the like difference betwene these latter editions of your latine translation and some other of elder time you knowe we can and it is by your owne writers confessed acknowledged Is this then a learned obseruation is this a good conclusion is this a sound reason against the greek testament such arguments runne for currant at Rhemes where popish blindnes raigneth but being a litle opened and laid forth in the light are by and by espied to be naught Of this difference twoe examples you alledge the former is the story of the adulterous woman in the eight of S. Iohn which although some Greeke copies haue wanted as apeereth by the Syriake interpreter by Chrysostom by Nonnus by Ierome yet others of as great authoritie had it So this difference is not through later corruption nor prooueth no more that the Greeke testament nowe is to be reiected then it was in S. Chrysostomes daies And furthermore this storie being in your vulgare translation what can you deuise against the Greeke more then the latine The Greeke and latine agreeing how is the Greeke more corrupt then the Latine The other is in the Epistle to the Ephesians Chap. 3. verse 14. Wherein Saint Ierome saith certaine wordes were added in the latine Domini nostri Iesu Christi not being in the Greeke But that herein Saint Ierome was deceiued appeereth by S. Chrystome who readeth the wordes in the Greeke as you may see in his Greeke commentaries And by this one example we may further note what diligence Saint Ierome vsed some time in correcting the latine according to the Greeke that denieth wordes to be in the Greeke which yet are found in Saint Chrysostomes copies and manie moe Your second obseruation is of rashe additions which haue bene made in the Greeke text Pag. 365. If this be an argument of anie force against the testament in Greeke it must haue much more weight against your common translation which is so full of additions both in the old testament as I haue shewed and also in the new as hath bene faithfullie declared by others Your examples are but twoe the one in Saint Iohns Gospell Chap. 8. vers 59. It may indeede appeere that those last words of the verse passing through the midst of them and so departed haue bene added But this corruption may be espied and corrected by auncient copies and so in this respecte no cause to reiecte or disallowe the wholl text in Greeke The other is the conclusion of the Lordes prayer For thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie for euer and euer Amen This peece as you call it your latine hath not our Greeke copies haue That some had it not in times past I confesse that others had it is plaine by the Syriake translator if you suspecte our copy of corruption why may not weas probably suspecte the same of yours and we haue as iust cause to be offended with you for omitting this as you with vs for so glorious singing and saying of it The third obseruation is pa 3. 67. that the Greeke testaments oftentimes omit that which they should not Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter 17. v. 36. For the first you might haue found that in many greeke copies now extant and vsed the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of thee are not omitted and that hath Beza noted and therefore supplyed those wordes in the greeke of the last Geneuian edition Your reproche of Anabaptisme is ridiculous The same maie be answered of the second For that 3 6. verse of Luc. 17. is extant in sundrie greeke editions as well as in your latine translation But what maketh all this to purpose Conclude hereof an argument if you can that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupted then the latine What a pitifull syllogisme will this be that must seuerallie of these places be concluded that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupt then the latine vulgar edition because the latine is in some places not so faulty as some Greeke copies either are or haue bene supposed to be Your last and principall reason pag. 371. c. why your Latine translator ought to be preferred before all other toucheth not the cause in hand as your owne wordes doe witnesse The controuesie is not which translation is best and moste to be preferred but whether this latine edition of your translator whosoeuer he were be worthely of your Church preferred before the originall fountaine Admit he was indued with such qualities as are moste requisite in faithfull translators of scripture in respect thereof deserueth greater creditte then the rest doth it therefore followe Master Rainolds that we must preferre him before the writers of holie scripture themselues was he of sounder religion