Next let him note that this his argument is the very shipwracke of Christian religion roote of al Paganisme destroyng our redemption destroyng our resurrection confounding and destroyng al the articles of our faith although it pretend the honor of god as wel writeth Caluin of Seruetus and the Anabaptists For what is the first corner-stone of the Seruetan and Anabaptistical buylding against Christes Incarnation Euen that which M. W. here tendereth them and was squared before to their handes by Zuinglius the Sacramentaries The Anabaptists I say vrging the selfe same Philosophical and Phisical rules obiect that the Papistes beleefe of Christes IncarnatioÌ„ of the Virgin besides that it is base and attributeth to much honor to that woman besides this is also against the rules of Phisicke and Philosophie and implieth a contradiction For ex arte medica Philosophia out of Philosophie and Physicke rules they fynd that vvomen are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to say that Christe had a true humaine body as is ours and yet of a virgin without the seede of man was to saye he had a true humaine bodie in worde denie it in deed And if M.W. waygh the matter well he shal find their argument better then his and that it toucheth more intrinsecally the essence and origin of our nature to be conceaued of the seede of man that to be formed of a virgin is much more repugnant to nature and sith the beginning of the world hath bene wrought more seeldoÌ„ theÌ„ a body to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof he talketh so peremptorily or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which others of his secte vrge is more to the purpose that is not circumscript nor visible nor local where of the first was practised in the self same body in his natiuitye resurrection ascension and in S. Peter Actorum 12. The second is more common and was not only in our Sauiour wheÌ„ the Iewes meante to haue throvven him dovvne headlong from the hill and he passing through the middes of them went his waye but also in Elizeus when the hoste of the King of Syria hauing him in the middes of them yet saw him not in S. Felix a martir priest of the citie of Nola of whom S. Paulinus bishop of the same citie writeth that in time of persequutioÌ„ when the citizens such as were infidels wel acquainted with him would haue appreheÌ„ded him they could not see or discerne him being in the middes of them although which is more straunge the faithful at the same instant saw him knew him and perceaued in him no difference or chaunge at al. So that at one and the self same time he was visible and inuisible knowen and vnknowen endued with his accustomed figure proportion and lineaments yet altered chaunged and so forth subiect to other such maruelous accidentes as M.W. fondly and falsly nameth contradictions The third is so far beneath the omnipotency of God that by the vulgar opinion of Philosophers the first heauen being a perfect natural body is notwithstaÌ„ding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in no place and therefore much more may we yeld this prerogatiue to Christ the Lord of heauen and earth whose worde wil is the very rule squyre of nature And let M.W. see how vrging so vehemently his proposition Chriâ—tes body is per omnia nostris corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sauing glory and immortalitye and he hath all the propertyes of a true and humaine bodye how he will free him self from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites Nestorians Who vpon this general proposition may must inferre their opinions that Christ was begotten betwene our Lady Ioseph as other men are they may and must infer that Christ assumpted as wel the person as the nature of man the personalitie being a thing much more nylie and essentially ioyned to the nature theÌ„ are these accidental qualities of visible and circumscript which here are obiected Thirdly I answere that this absurdity was forseene by the auÌ„cient fathers who for al that were neuer induced to inueÌ„t this distinctioÌ„ that you haue fouÌ„d out that is to deny the verity of Christes presence Let vs euermore beleeue God saith S. Chrisostom albeit it seeme absurd to our sense cogitation that vvhich he saith albeit his vvords surpasse our sense and reason Thus as in al things vve ought to doe so especially in the sacramentes not beholding those thinges vvhich lie before our eyes but holding fast his vvordes For in his vvordes vve can not be beguiled but our sense is easely deceaued Therefore sith he said This is my body let vs beleeue it vvithout casting any doubt and vvith the eyes of our vnderstanding conceaue the same The lyke is vsed by diuers other fathers which they neuer needed to haue spoken nether could haue spoken with reason had their faith bene so agreable to the rules of Philosophie as you would now make it Fourthly I say that your owne brethren and maisters though in other heresies they agreed with you yet in this kind of argument detested and abhorred you So the Historiographers of Magdeburg in their fourth Centurie where they proue by many authorities of S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Hilary S. Epiphanius S. Nazianzen S. Basil and others the verity of Christes presence dedicating the same to the Quenes Maiestie thus they speake vnto her And this most excellent Quene is not to be ouerpassed that vvhereas novv there grovv euery vvhere diuers as it vvere factions of opinions amonge vvhich some flatly by Philosophical reasons make voyd and frustrate the testament of our lord so as they take avvay the body bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant vvordes of Christe and deceaue men vvith marueilous aequiuocation of speach principally your maiestie hath to prouide that the sacramentes may be restored vvithout such pharisaical leaueÌ„ c. And MelanchthoÌ„ whom Peter Martyr maketh equal for learning and godlines with S. Austin S. Hierom S. Leo the auncient fathers debating this matter with Oecolampadius There is no care saith he that hath more troubled my mynde then this of the Eucharist And not only my self haue vvayghed vvhat might be said on ether syde but I haue also sought out the iudgemeÌ„t of the old vvriters touching the same And vvhen I haue laid al together I find no good reason that may satisfye a coÌ„science departing from the propriety of Christes vvordes You gather many absurdities vvhich folovv this opinion as here we see in M.W. but absurdities vvill not trouble him vvho remembreth that vve must iudge of diuine matters according to Gods vvorde not according to Geometrie And not far after in the same booke I find no reason hovv I may depart from this opinion touching the real
one substance vvith the father Yet M.W. defending the Autotheisme of Caluin and affirming Christ to be begotten not of his fathers substance but of his person and to be God of him selfe not God of God besides the abominable heresie vvhich in so sayng he maintaineth he also manifestly gainsaith the publike confession vvhich in their Communion booke they seeme to holde In Germany it is lawful for the Lutheranes to take armes and wage battayle and bid defiance and renounce al obedieÌ„ce to the Emperour likewise for the Gewes in Flanders the Hugonots in France against their seueral princes and the principal diuines yea Luther him self that Elias Apostle and Euangelist after long deliberation wel liked that the Protestants should in warlike maner bande them selues against the Emperour and those that died in such warres were of the chiefe preachers accounted for Saintes and martirs And it was resolued by al the states Ecclesiastical and Temporal of the Lutheran religioÌ„ against Charles the Emperour that Quia religioni molitur exitium atque libertati causam praebet cur ipsum oppugnemus bona conscientia CuÌ„ enim in eum casum res deuenit licet resistere sicut sacris prophanis historiis demonstrari potest Becaue the Emperour intendeth the ouerthrovv of religion and libertie he geueth vs cause to vvarre against him vvith safe conscience For vvhen the matter coÌ„meth to that issue it is lavvful to resist as it may be proued both by sacred and prophane stories And Beza in his epistle to the Quenes maiestie holdeth those FreÌ„ch Protestants who died in warre against their king for Saints Martirs vvho by their bloud consecrated happely to God the first foundation of Christian religion vvhich vvas then to be restored in Fraunce And vvhat preacher vvas there in England of any name vvho in publike sermons commended not their cause as iust agreable to al lavves humane and diuine and therefore in al respectes allovvable Likevvise M. Fox doth extolle and magnifie the most barbarous and Turkish factes committed by the BohemiaÌ„ heretikes rebelling against their Prince for the gospel and religion of Iohn Husse For whereas the Emperour Sigismund being then in Germanie had said That he vvould shortly come into Bohemia and rule the kingdome after the same order as his father Charles had done before him the Hussites or Protestantes I vse M. Foxes ovvne vvordes vnderstanding thereby that their sect and religion should be vtterly banished vvhich vvas not begonne during the raigne of the said Charles they rebelled out of hand which rebellioÌ„ in his whole storie he much coÌ„mendeth So that the Lutheranes of Germany mâ—y lawfully take armes against their Emperour for defense of Lutheranisme and the Caluinistes of FraÌ„ce may warre against their King to bring into that realme the religion of Caluine and the Hussites of Bohemâ—a may rebelle against their soueraine Prince for the religion of Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prage far more differing from the Protestante then from the Catholike and by like right and reason euery other sect may do the like for furthering increasing their seueral faithes and religions And yet in England inâ—ocent men who neuer in fact attempted ought and neuer in word approued any such disloyaltie against the Princes estate being draweÌ„ by craftie circumuention to say that in certaine cases as if the Prince should fal to professioÌ„ of Arrianisme Turcisme or Atheisme the subâ—ecte might vvithdravv his obedience vvere therevpon defamed for heynous traytours and the same imagined supposal published at the time of their death as a matter deseruing most extreme punishment In Quene Maries time the English Protestants retired to Geneua set out sundry bookes wherein by manifold textes of scripture both of the old testament the new they excluded womeÌ„ froÌ„ al regiment Princely iurisdiction euen in matters temporal which they accounted called monstruous vnnatural against the law of God and man and therefore in no wise to be suffered Yet al this notwithstanding the next yere folowing the same men found it agreable to al scripture and al lawes that a woman might haue supreme authoritie not only in matters temporal and ciuil but also in spiritual and ecclesiastical and by terrible punishmeÌ„t euen of extreme and exquisite death were content to bynde the subiectes generally to this point of beleefe yet with this distinction that the Nobilitie and Barons of the realme should be exempted from the same as though they might haue a faith dâ—uers from others of the same realme or one and the selfe same faith might be necessarie and not necessarie true and false enlarged and restrained according to the diuers degrees of nobilitie and coÌ„munaltie Briefly concerning the whole forme of their ecclesiastical Seruice in the first Communion booke it is thus appointed that The minister at the time of the Communion and at al other times in his ministratioÌ„ shal vse such ornamentes in the church as vvere in vse by authoritie of Parlament in the second yere of the reigne of King Edvvard the sixt I appeale now to the knowledge of euery man how wel that acte of Parlament is obserued through out the realme in how many Cathedral or parish churches those ornamentes are reserued whether euery priuate minister by his owne authoritie in the time of his ministration disdaine not such ornamentes vsing only such apparel as is most vulgar prophane I omit other particular differences of feastes of holy daies of crossing in baptisme of communicating the sicke c. in which their continual alteration is wel knowen by their dayly practise and their verie Communion bookes printed in diuers yeres Only I wish the reader of his owne wisedom and consideration to marke the general chaunges which from time to time our realme hath fallen into since this schisme first began there In the later yeres of king Henry the eight we were touchâ—ng many pointes Catholikes as the Parlament holdâ—n the yere 1540 doth testifie wherein by authoritie of Parlament these articles were accorded and agreed vpon That there is the real presence of Christes natural body and bloud in the most blessed sacrament vnder the formes of bread and vâ—yne That the Communion in both kindes is not necessarie ad salutem by the lavv of God to al persons That priestes after the order of priesthod by the lavv of God may not marry That vovves of chastitie or vvydovvhead made to God aduisedly ought to be obserued by the lavv of God That priuate Masses are to be continued and admitted in the kinges English church congregation as vvhereby good christian people do receaue both many and goodly consolations and benefites and it is agreable also to Gods lavv That auricular Confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued vsed and frequented in the church of God In the same Parlament and
be most populous and of al nations sundry shal ioyne them selues vnto it abundantly VVherefore let the Ievves be ashamed vvhich thinke them selues alone to be the sonnes of Abraham Avvay with the Montanistes vvhich say that they alone haue receaued the holy Ghost Confounded be the Donatistes c. hovv much should vve vvithdravv and take from the church catholike if vve beleeued these men And againe vpon Ieremie God here speaketh of the eternitie of Christes kingdome and svveareth that as his league is stedfast with the sunne and moone vvith sommer and vvynter vvith day and night so also he vvil performe that vvhich he promised to Christ that he shal haue kinges and priestes and that for euer and that not a fevv but as the starres of heauen and the sand of the sea both for their dignitie and puritie and also for their multitude The like wordes he hath and confirmeth the same by sundry places of scripture in Isai ca. 64 v 13. Daniel ca. 2. v. 44. Zachar ca. 2. v. 1.2.3 et ca. 7. v. 13.14.15 et ca. 12. v. 6.7 And Illyricus gathereth very wel out of the first chap. of S. Matth. that the true church in the middest of al persecutâ—oÌ„s destructions of cities CoÌ„mon welthes and peoples is not only preserued miraculously by gods special ayde protection but also Ostendit ista series saith he ecclesiam et religionem veraÌ„ habere certas historias suae originis et progressus This genealogie proueth that the true church and religion hath assured historyes of her beginning and encrease I passe ouer very many places of these and other learned Protestantes Brentius Lauatherus Luther Bullinger who in their Commentaries vpon the scriptures refel this sauage opinion of our english Protestants by infinite and the same very euident places of scripture And wonder it were if any thing were wonderful in men forsaken of God and geuen ouer to their ovvne sense hovv these men do not perceaue yea and feele the most sensible contradiction which disputing of this question and of Christes real presence in the sacrament they runne into For here they charge vs that we take from Christ the truth of his body and deny his incarnation because we say it is inuisible and not circumscribed with a certaine place which they say are proprieties so essential to humane nature that the very glorified body of our Sauiour remayneth not a body if it wante them Of this argument M. VV. insulteth and triumpheth in this booke Hoc argumentum saith he to M Martin impetus tuos non pertimescit This argument feareth not your forces Yet talking of the Church militant which consisteth of a number of bodies by nature mortal by essential proprietie visible and bound to a certaine place by Christes ordinance dispersed thorough al quarters of the world this Church they say was a true church and yet inuisible consisted of Emperours Priests nations and peoples and yet circumscribed with no certaine place appearing in no certaine citie prouince or kingdome so tying most ethnically the glorious celestial deified and supernatural body of Christ to the base rules of corruptible philosophie from which they exempt the mortal bodies of men which by the law of God and nature are subiect therevnto But to returne to the fal of the vniuersal Church vpoÌ„ the ruines whereof M.W. booke in particular this new congregation in general is buylt and standeth the issue of that doctrine is no other nether possibly can be but a flat abnegation of Christ Christianitie as the writings of our aduersaries ioyned with their practise declare abundantly to al those who lyst to open their eyes and take a litle paines to learne that which so deepely it importeth them to know And to this purpose notable is the storie of Dauid George the Hollander who being expelled from the low countries for the Sacramentarie heresie and for the same cause honorably receaued and intertained by them of Basile being then of the same religion and many yeres wel esteemed of in that citie after proceeded so far in the gospel that he tooke to him self the name and office of Christ and accompted our Sauiour for a seducer and deceauer and secretly drew many to his opinion For which cause three yeres after his death the rulers of that Citie tooke the body out of his graue and burned it and withal set out the whole storie of his life fayth and death and the rest appertaining to his condemnation and their owne defence This man by what reason principally was he lead into that Turkish madnes forsooth his cheefe reason was this as in the same booke appeareth If that Christ had bene the true Christ then the Church erected by him should haue continued for euer But now we see and it is manifest that the Romish bishop that Antichrist hath surpressed and ouerthrowen many hundred yeres since the church which that Christ erected Hereof it foloweth that he was not the true Messias but a lying maister and a false prophet And Sebastianus Castalio in the preface of his bible dedicated to king Edward what doth he els but closely deny Christ to be the true Messias when vpon this very ground of the churches fal he thus discourseth First he laieth for a foundation the excellencies and prerogatiues of the church which should be established by the Messias as her quietnes and vnitie in religion described by Michaeas cap. 4. That the earth should be so replenished vvith the knovvledge of our Lord as the sea is vvith vvaters Esai 11. And againe cap. 60. VVhereas thou were forsaken enuied and vnfrequented I vvil make the saith God to arise into an euerlasting height so as thou shalt sucke the milke of other nations and the brestes of princes and thou shalt knovv that I thy God am thy sauiour and defender Thy sunne shal no more go dovvne nor thy moone leese her light for our lord shal be thy light which euer shal coÌ„tinue After this sort much more he hath touching the churches happy estate and continuance as before hath bene noted Then looking to the effect and accomplishment of these promises according to Protestantes learning and iudgement he protesteth expressely that this excellencie and felicitie promised to the church of Christians by the coÌ„ming of Messias the more he considereth the scriptures the lesse he findeth the same as yet to haue bene performed howsoeuer a man vnderstand those places alleaged Whereof he frameth this argument Equidem aut haec sutura esse fateÌ„dum est aut iam fuisse aut deus accusandus mendacit Quod si quis fuisse dicet quaeram ex eo quaÌ„do fuerint Si dicet Apostolorum tempore quaeram cur nec vndiquaque perfecta fuerit et tam cito exâ—leuerit dei cognitio ac pietas quae et aeterna et marinis vndis abundantior fuerat promissa Truly vve must confesse ether
Diuines of the Prince Elector do most filthely and beyonde all measure depraue Luthers vvrytings so as since Luthers death there haue not bene more foule corrupters of Luthers bookes In the same Councel many times they fal into this argumēt and each side in most spitefull termes obiecte to others this faulte as may be seene if you liste to peruse the pages here noted in the margent And in fine there is promise made as a matter of great importance and one of Hercules labours that the Duke of Saxonie will cause Luthers workes to be printed without corruption Illustrissimus Dux Saxoniae curabit tomos Lutheri sine deprauatione typis excudi which notwithstāding is perhaps a harder thing thē the Duke of Saxonie can perfourme though his power were much greater then it is What speake I of the Lutherans with whom Luthers wordes be autenticall and litle inferior to scripture whereas the very Caluinists and that in Geneua where Caluin is all in all yet notwithstanding haue in their prints corrupted Luthers works whereof Ioachim VVestphalus a Lutheran thus wryteth in his Apologie against the slanders of Caluin I Marueil much sayeth he that Caluin keeping such a doe about this one vvord could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the diuine commentarie of D. Luther vpon the epistle to the Galatians and translated into French and printed at Geneua In one place some vvordes are taken avvay in an other many mo some vvhere vvhole paragraphs are lopte of in the exposition of the sixte chapter tvvo pages and an halfe are lefte out vvhere Luther doth reproue the Sacramentaries there especially those falsifiers tooke to them selues libertie to mutilate to take avvay to blotte out and change some vvhere they remoue the name of Sacramentaries at other tymes they haue put in vvordes such as pleased them and that this vvas done at Geneua vvithout Caluins knovvledge it is not very lykely And touching this very place wherof we treate when Coclaeus obiected it to Bullinger as now M. Martin did to M. W. he answered not denyinge that which was so publyke and notorious but Guperem Lutherum sobrié magis modestaus circumspectius c. I vvoulde to God Luther had iudged and geuen his sentence more soberlye discreetelye and circumspectly of Sainte Iames his Epistle and the Apocalips of Sainte Iohn and certayne other Add we herevnto M. W. owne confession set downe in this preface I confesse sayth he that Luther hath vvritten in a certen place that Iames his Epistle is not to be compared vvith the Epistles of Peter and Paule and that in comparison of them it may be iudged an epistle made of stravv Which a man would thinke were sufficiente to cleare M. Martin and M. Campian and to condemne Luther and M. Whitaker For how or in what comparison coulde Luther so speake but onely to disgrace that epistle in respect of other scripture to make it light and contemptible that is not to make it scripture at all For if he thought it to proceede from the holy Ghost as did the bookes of the Prophets the Gospels and Epistles of Sainte Paule how coulde he without intollerable iniurye done to the holy Ghost so debase that wryting which he beleeued to proceede from his diuine inspiration But M. Whitaker replyeth That vvorde albeit I defende not yet iustly may I say that Luther is iniuried vvhen he is accused to haue reiected as made of stravv that epistle and playnely and simply to haue named it so vvhereas he called it so in comparison especially vvhereas these vvordes are not founde in the bookes of later printes and excepte I by chaunce had happened vpon a most auncient edition I might haue sought long inough in the later Confesse you then that there hath bene such choppinge and changinge in Luthers workes that the one differ so far from the other namely in this very point How standeth this now with your former bold asseueration It is certaine there vvas neuer any one vvorde changed therein And what reason haue you better to credit these later printes sett furth by Luthers scholers then the auncient set furth by the maister and author Luther him selfe But to end this matter may it please you to reade Father Duraeus there shall you be informed in what print and edition of Luther these wordes are to be reade to wit not in the later of VVittēberg corrected and corrupted by the ciuill Lutherans but in the more auncient of Iena a Citie in religion lutherish to but yet after a more exacte and precise order then are those other There may you finde that Pomerane a greate Euangelist among the lutherans touchinge S. Iames Epistle wryteth thus Fayth vvas reputed to Abraham for iustice by this place thou mayest note the error of the epistle of Iames vvherein thou feest a vvicked argument besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth scripture against scripture vvhich thing the holy Ghost can not abyde vvherefore that epistle may not be numbred amongest other bookes vvhich set foorth the iustice of fayth There may you finde Vitus Theodorus preacher of Norimberg in hye Germanie wryting thus The epistle of Iames and Apocalips of Iohn vve haue of set purpose lefte out because the epistle of Iames is not onely in certayne places reprouable vvhere be to much aduaunceth vvorkes agaynst fayth but also his doctrine through out is patched together of dyuers peeces vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other Vnto these you may add for your better satisfaction the iudgement of the Centuries noted by F. Campian though not touched by you They say that the epistle of Iames much svvarueth from the analogie of the Apostolicall doctrine vvhereas it ascribeth iustification not to onely fayth but to vvorks and calleth the lavv a lavv of libertie And in the next booke Against Paule and against all scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth iustice to vvorkes and peruerteth as it vvere of set purpose that vvhich Paule disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genes 15. that Abraham vvas iustified by onely fayth vvithout vvorkes and affirmeth that Abraham obteyned iustice by vvorkes You may add Luther him selfe in his commentarie vpon S. Peter ep 1. ca. 1. fol. 439.440 in the common edition of Wittemberg where after he hath geuen many rules taken from his owne licentious doctrine wherby to discerne the true and canonicall scriptures from false and Apocriphal of them al thus he concludeth pa. 442. Atque inde etiam facile discitur epistolam D. Iacobi nomine inscriptam handquaquam Apostolicam esse epistolam nullum enim prope elementum in ea de his rebus legis Hereby vve easely learne that it is no Apostolical Epistle vvhich goeth in S. Iames his name for there is in it no letter or title of these matters that is of onely fayth confidence resurrection c. whereby we must esteeme of true
is and must be deduced to wit the cause why the Englishe congregatioÌ„ admittinge S. Iames hath reiected those other and we shall straightwaies finde not only that he ouerthroweth himself which is a comoÌ„ tricke amoÌ„gst such good writers but also concludeth the contrarie of that which here he preteÌ„deth The Church readeth the bookes of Iudith Tobie and the Machabees saith S. Hierome but reckeneth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures In that the Church at solemne times read them it is a great argumente that she much honoured them although she admitted them not as then vniuersallie into that highest roome of supreme authoritye But of S. Iames we heare not so much but contrariwise Eusebius directlie affirmeth if M. VV. saie true and iudgeth wold all other men so to iudge that that epistle of S. Iames is a false and bastard epistle and Hierome a prieste after the order of the Romane Church and not a minister after the fashion of the English congregation is brought to proue the same Who seeth not now what greate difference there is betweene these two verdits geuen in by these auncient fathers the first being read in the Church had a degree to Canonicall scriptures the later had no such Of the first he bringeth in S. Hierome saynge onlie that as then it was not acknowledged for Canonical he bringeth in S. Hierome to saie as much of the second and for a surcharge he ioyneth Eusebius directlie affirming it to be a bastard epistle and withall wishinge all men so to iudge of it him self inferreth that Luther in his rashnes which we condemne folowed the iudgement and testimonie of the auncieÌ„t primitiue Church he affirmeth farther as a general principle namely treatinge of this epistle Quod principio statim non habet diuinam authoritatem non potest tempore hominum approbatione fieri diuinum That vvhich at the first hath not presentlie diuine or canonicall authoritye as in their opinion S. Iames had not can not be made canonicall by the approbation of men yet now of these he wold haue vs learne this distinction that the primitiue Church vniuersallie reiected the bookes of Iudith Tobie the Machabees some onlie and those without iust cause refused S. Iames epistle and therefore that the English congregation hath done verie discretelie to authorize the one disauthorize the others let him not playe to much the Sophister but answere as becoÌ„meth a Diuine saue him self in this froÌ„ opeÌ„ folie contradiction he shall shew more wisedome learning theÌ„ hetherto he hath geuen vs occasion to deeme in him And that he may the better waye the veritie and substance of his aunswere and the reader haue occasion to consider what a variable tottering gospel these men preache and how iustlie we obiect to them that at their pleasure they make hauocke of scripture I will laye to M.VV. reasoning the effecte of the late disputation had in the Tower with F. Campian touching this pointe This they make the mayne grounde of their whole argameÌ„t Those bookes vvhich olde fathers and Councels haue not receaued for canonical bookes to ground our faith vpon them can not nevâ— meâ— nor the Tridentine Councel make canonical This proposition standâ—ng for good which they so confidentlie vrge and M.VV. thinketh yâ— moste assured let vs see vppoÌ„ this rule what waste they make of the sacred bookes vppon that ground thus they buylde or rather pull downe Aug. li. 2. cap. 8. de doct Christiana leaueth out Baruch and the tvvo last bookes of Esdras Hierom in his preface vppon the booke of Kinges saith that Sapientia Salomonis Iesus the sonne of Sirach Iudith and Tobias are not in the Canon Eusebius in his sicâ—e booke and 18. chapiter it is the 19. leaueth out the third and fourth of Esdras Tobias Iudith Baruch Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and the bookes of Machabees and concerning the epistle to the Hebrevves though him selfe say plainly it is S. Paules yet he confesseth that many haue doubted thereof also coÌ„cerning the second epistle of S. Peter he saith it vvas doubted of many so of some vvere the last tvvo epistles of Iohn The same Eusebius li. 4. ca. 26. it is 25. speaketh of Melito bishop of Sardis vvho reckening vp the volumes of the old testament omitteth Esdras Tobie Hester Iudith Baruch VVisdome Sirach the bookes of Machabees And the CouÌ„cel of Laodicea omitteth Lukes gospel the Apocalyps you see therefore that these olde Fathers haue leaste these books out of the canon yet vvere not called heretikes nor blasphemers Thus farre they Afterwards they define those to be not Canonical but Apocriphal that are not in the auncient Canon receaued and allovved to haue proceeded vndoubtedly from the holy Ghost and those Apocriphal are forbid to be read and though they may be read for moral lessons yet not for matters of religion Afterward the same argument is resumed againe and especially that parte vrged that the Councel of Laodicea leaueth out those former bookes in the olde Testament Tobias Iudith the booke of vvisdome Ecclesiasticus and in the nevv Testament Luke and the Apocalyps And when F. Campian answered that that Councel was but particuler reply was made that the Councel vvas prouincial and farther confirmed by the sixte general Councel holden in Trullo Constantine being presideÌ„t as Bartholomeus CaraÌ„za vvriteth fol. 71. And therefore vve may leaue out of the canon Tobie Iudith c. vvhich your Councel of Trent thrust in as autentical Hetherto your brethren in the fourth dayes conference In the first day vpon like warrant they recken amongst Apocryphal bookes that which you labour so much to saue S. Iames which there is called a counterfeit or bastard epistle by iudgement of Eusebius Item the epistle of Iude the later of Peter the second and thirde of Iohn And against these they alleage Eusebius Hierome Epiphanius and the Councell of Laodicea confirmed as they say there againe by the general Councel holden in Trullo And yet such is their inconstancie in the same place some of these in worde they professe to receaue but only as at pleasure of curtesie and liberalitie not as of fayth dutie and necessitie For the summe of all commeth to this and it is the effect of that disputation Such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of we are not bound to admit for Canonical but may refuse now These particuler bookes here named haue bene doubted of in olde time ergo these bookes we are not bouÌ„d to admit for Canonical but may refuse them now This being your reason and the same so manifestly approued by them and you out of the same for our presente purpose against you this I note First how iustly we accuse you for defacing and renting out so many parcels and whole bookes of scripture In the olde Testament Tobias Iudith Hester Baruch The booke of Wisdome Ecclesiasticus The two bookes of the Machabees
In the nevv Testament S. Lukes Gospel The Epistle to the Hebrewes The Epistle of Saint Iames. The 2. of S. Peter The 2. 3. of S. Iohn S. Iude. The Apocalyps Vnto these partly your selues in your common bibles partly your brethren ioyne certayne other peeces both of the olde Testament and of the new as The prayer of Manasses Paralip lib. 2. The songe of the three children The story of Bel. Canticum canticorum and a parte of S. Iohns Gospel some of these held for canonicall these fiftene hundred yeares some these twelue hundred all aboue a thousand Nexte your distinction of the vvhole Church and some of the Church were it true as it is most false is vtterly refuted by these your owne doctors for by their sentence whatsoeuer hath bene doubted of not onely in the whole Church but in a part for they goe not about to proue that these were doubted of in the whole Church and leaste of all S. Lukes Gospell that may you doubte of and number amongst the bookes Apocriphal and both you and they proue as substantially that S. Iames was doubted of as you proue the same of Iudith Hester the Machabees or any other sauing that they fowly ouerreach them selues when they affirme that S. Lukes Gospell with those other was leaft out and not receaued for Canonical in the Prouincial Councel of Laodicea and the same confirmed by a general Councel afterward Then commeth to my remembrāce your profoūd argumēt against M. Campian in defence of Luther Luther despiseth S. Iames his epistle saith M. Campian you answere Bene habet crimen hoc omne Iacobi epistolam attingit c. That goeth vvell All this fault toucheth only Iames epistle Luther doth not in a vvorde violate Matthevv Marke Luke or Iohn nor Paule nor Peter only he somevvhat shaketh vppe Iames epistle A deepe reason as though S. Iames beinge canonical scripture were not to be esteemed as honorably and violated as litle as S. Peter or any of the other and as though he in so writing and you in so defendinge doe not lay the way open to shake of and violate all the reste as wel as that For now if a man burden you with the refusal of S. Luke your defence is already prouided bene habet al goeth vvel Al this faulte toucheth only S. Luke Our doctors doe not in a vvorde violate Matthevv Marke Iohn nor Paule nor Peter only vve somevvhat shake vp Lukes Gospel and so peece-meale til none be leafte you may and will shake out one after an other stil Bene habet all goeth vvell vntill you fall to open profession of Atheisme in the broade way whereof you are farre wel gone already Fourthlye because in the end of your preface yow bragge so much of your forefathers that they haue euer vāquished ours here you put vs in mind what forefathers those are Hetherto your forefathers were knowen to be Aerius in denying prayer sacrifice for the dead Vigilantius of whom yow learned to condemne the inuocatiō of Saintes honor done to them in the Church Iouinian in breaking vowes of chastitie deliberatelye made to God and making the state of matrimonye touching merite equal in the sight of God with the state of virginitie continentie Which men notwithstanding were forced to yeld to our forefathers S. Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Augustine as hetherto al Christendom is witnes and therefore were not such victorious capitaynes as you woulde make them In this place as though your purpose were to ouerbeare vs with number and make your armye so much the more stronge you multiplye and set in ranke againste vs more fathers For whereas you so blasphemouslye speake of the booke of Iudith that it is far vnvvorthy to be called scripture and yet match S. Luke and the Apocalyps with it whereas you saye most plainlye of these and al the forenamed bookes that yow are not bound to admit them but may refuse them that they be read for moral lessons not for matters of religion you simplye disallow for canonical those two bookes And who are your fathers herein but those auncient Archheretikes Marcion and Cerdon those other for ther brutishnes called Alogi or Bruti In which your doinge as the reader may easely perceaue how yow trotte forwarde to playne Apostasie from Christe by callinge now the verye Gospel into questiō so why we should number you amongest those olde Brutishe heretikes your selues yeald vs more abūdāt reasō thē our fathers had in calling them by that name For your self M.VV. cōfesse and proue your doctors and maisters to be the most sensles and brutishe creatures that euer wēt on the earth For to auoide directe answeringe to the question proposed you hovv you knovv the bookes vvhich you call scripture to be heauenlye and penned by diuine inspiration that is by vvhat testimonie you knovv those vvritinges to be canonical or holye vvhich be so called you say and I vvith as good reason vvill demaund of you hovv you knovve the sunne to be the sunne or hovv you assure your self that God is God for vve knovv as assuredlye that these are the holy scriptures cōmēded by God to his Church vvritten by the Prophetes and Apostles and deliuered by diuine authorytie as vve knovv the moone to be the moone or at a vvord any other thinge vvhatsoeuer vve comprehend by most certaine knovvledge and this ansvvere Caluine also geueth you And this answere I admitte from you and Caluine and hereof I conclude that you are more trulye called Alogi and brutishe then were those other auncient heretikes For was there euer in the worlde any so notable a Choraebus or Grillus hauinge the shape of man that fell at brawlinge disputinge with his friēdes whether the sunne which we see were the sūne or the moone the moone as you do against Luther your churches against the Lutheranes whether S. Iames epistle be canonical then yf you thinke right as I truste you wil speake wel of your selfe with the same breath you condemne your father Luther and your brethren the Lutheranes for the veriest sottes and stockes that euer liued for they know not the moone they know not the sunne which to you shineth so bright cleare And to oppose your self vnto your brethrē at home and to your owne self how say you to S. Luke to the epistles of S. Peter Iude Iohn the Apocalyps be they canonical or no yf you say yea as I thinke you will or at the lest that was your opinion in September laste as your booke sheweth then your doctors now denyinge the same you see what is to be concluded that one parte of you is as wise as those former who know not the sunne from the moone Yf you denie and be of their iudgmente as it may be very wel your faith beinge as mutable as is the moone yet so you proue your self
iustifie or be the merite cause efficient of iustice life and not vvhether they be in any respect necessarie to saluation which in deed is or was when you first began the verie point of the controuersie which he therefore defendeth vz that they are in no respect necessarie by 26. most firme and stronge demonstrations as he calleth them and reckeneth this your doctrine for a papisticall error and calleth you a nevv papist for putting the questiō as you doe These are his wordes Hetherto touching the papistes corruption of this doctrine novv I come to the doctrine of the nevv papistes vvhich is as pernicious as the old they say that the Apostle meant to exclude good vvorkes from iustification non simpliciter ratione debiti not simply and as due but only as meritorious causes efficient vvhere-vpon these doctors or rather seducers do diuers vvayes elude that proposition of S. Paule vve are iustified by faith gratis vvithout vvorkes eche one according to his ovvne head and as his priuate spirite suggesteth to him and most of thē couet diligently to mingle vvorkes as a certain harmefull leauen vvith iustification the lambe of God And there he reckneth twelue such corruptions the last where of is yours the very self same which here you defend against which he setteth downe the protestantes faith thus But the true sense of Paules vvordes is that vvithout al merite condition or necessitie of our vvorkes by only faith in Christ vve are iustified before Christ saued so as our saluation doth in no sort depend of our vvorkes nether be they any vvay necessarie to saluation c. Scripture Luther and al doctors of sound iudgment thinke thus of vvhich doctrine these be most firme demonstrations c. and in fine he saith Iste ipse error est omnino papistica corruptela articuli iustificationis This verie error is altogether a papistical corruptiō of the article of iustificatiō And if you can recal to memorie the common argumentes gathered to your hand by euery heretike that hath writtē vpon the epistle to the Romanes namely the fourth chapter you shall soone perceiue that your opinion and their commentaries can neuer match together out of the mayne heape I wil note one or two such as are most common to euery preacher and found in euery booke whereby you shal see how by this assertion you ouerthrow your whole doctrine S. Paule excludeth al our boastinge from iustice and saluation and that in Abraham a man most holie ergo vvorkes are by no meanes so much as causa sine qua non of saluation othervvise vve shoud haue some occasion of boasting Againe Paule him selfe separateth his vvorkes and iustices so far from his saluation that he accounteth them for trashe and hinderances of saluation If such an Apostle vvho for Christ and the Gospel laboured more then al the rest be constrained to cast avvay his innumerable most excellent vvorkes as trashe and hinderances to saluation hovv madly do vve say that our vvorkes are necessarie Againe all our iustices saith Esai ca. 64. are as foule stayned clothes hovv can a thinge so filthie and disallovved of God do any thinge or be necessary to iustice before God Out of which M.W. may of two cōclusions choose one which shal lyke him best ether that his principall doctors interprete S. Paule peruersly and wickedly when in S. Paules epistles they interprete the vvorkes of the lavv our iustice legal iustice I esteemed my vvorkes dunge durte that I might obteine the iustice of Christ when I say they stil expounde these places of the workes of Christian men done by the grace and spirite of God or els that his assertiō is against al sense and reason to make that necessarie to saluation which the Prophetes Apostles do so abase so condemne make so filthie in the sight of God of these two which he wil choose I know not but because I thinke he wil rather cōdemne them then deny him self for so long as he may be his owne iudge the word of God shal be cleare on his side I finallie oppose against him as in this self same question the zelous Lutherans opposed against the cold Melanchthonistes in the Councel of Altemburg after manifold argumentes brought for only faith against any necessitie of workes After al this say they vve conclude vvith that vvorthy sainge of Luther in his first tome printed at VVittemberge if vvorkes be necessary to saluation then saluation can not be had vvithout vvorkes and then vve are not saued by only faith And thus you see how wel you haue disproued M. Martins saing and approued your owne so wel that by verdite of your great writers in fine you haue marred the topp and crowne of your Kingdome your solifidian iustification and by them for your paines are iudged to be a Papist which I wish were true for your owne sake CHAP. VI. Hovv vnreasonably M. VV. behaueth him self in reprouing and approuing the auncient fathers for their doctrine touching good vvorkes NOw come I to the third part that is your accusatiō of the fathers wherein also M. Martine noteth you of contradiction to your self for with what reason could you call them most holy sanctissimos when in the self same place you defaced them as most iniurious to the bloud passion or Christ you answere smoothing so much as you may the matter and say that they erred a litle and yet within fiue lines before you say they erred greuously and diminished not a litle the force of Christes death passion and there error proceded rather of lacke of vvitte then of malice and though vve graunt that herein they erred a litle yet in respect of yours their errors seeme ether light or none at all Here of you conclude that vvel you might cal them most holy although they erred once or vvere not so vvise as they might haue bene This is that which in the beginninge I tolde you that you speake doubtfully and stammer falter in your tale know not wel what to say for to let passe that in one page you make it a greuous error and in the next ether none at all or a verie light one compare your cruel and bloudie wordes whereof riseth M. Martins reprofe with this second modification then let euery man iudge what a miserable defender you are you say there that the fathers thought by their external vvorkes of penance to pay the paines due for sinnes and to satisfie Gods iustice and to procure to thē selues assured impunitie remissiō iustice that thereby they derogated not a litle from Christes death attributed to much to their ovvne inuentions and finallie depraued repentance Here you say it vvas a litle error a smale ouersight they slipt a litle and that they vvere not vvithstanding most holymen You a Christian M.W. dare thus to write you
of my opinion and thinke the sense which I geue to be the onely true and yours to be the false shal he be so bold to shut out yours and thrust in his owne with like necessitie restraynt as you haue done if so then you know the Lutherans thinke as I say For thus writeth Illyricus and he writeth as it may seeme directlie against your Beza Some vnderstand this place that Christ is receaued or coÌ„teyned of the heauen vvhich sentence is against the scope of the Apostle and should set forth rather the infirmitie then the glorie povver of Christ For so of angels yea of deuils it may be sayd that they are receaued or coÌ„teyned of heaueÌ„ because the vvorde coeluÌ„ sometime in the scripture signifieth the ayer A goodlie matter he vvho by vvitnes â—o the scripture filleth al thinges vve vvil say is receaued or conteyned in a certen place almost as it vvere in a prison Secondarily what wicked and vncoÌ„scionable dealing is this in spending so many wordes not to speake any one worde to the purpose whereunto you should speake al or els hold your peace speake nothing Was not that the point of his reprehension not because you gaue a passiue for an actiue or deponent but because you did it in this place and did it to this end that so you might seeme by scripture to exclude Christ froÌ„ the sacrament For this reason Beza geueth and for this reason M. Martin reproueth Beza Bezaes corruption and of this M.W. speaketh not a worde or if he do it is a manifest falsitie For if M. Whit. sayng that Beza did it for that only cause to auoyde doubtful speach oppose him selfe to M. Martin in this it can not be excused froÌ„ a playne lye for so much as in Bezaes behalfe he auoucheth that to be true which Beza him selfe protesteth to be false They so conclude Christ in heaueÌ„ saith M. Martin that he can not be on the altar and Beza protesteth that he so translateth of purpose to kepe Christes presence thence Yet a third faulte you haue committed besides in iustifying this smal demie sentence and that is whereas M. Martin for the better strengthning of his reason against you ioyned to it the authoritie of Illyricus and Caluin you omit them bothe This translation of Beza is so far from the Greke saith M. Martin that not onely Illyricus the Lutherane but Caluin him selfe doth not like it Which wodes if you had ioyned to the rest if you had but named those men your slender reasoÌ„s in the eyes of your reader would forthwith haue appeared contemptible And wel he might haue marueyled how you durst defend such a translation which not only Illyricus a famous LutheraÌ„ but also Caluin a prince amongst the ZuingliaÌ„s in plaine speach reprehendeth whereby a man may see that you seeke not for truth but only to talke on and serue the tyme abuse the reader And yet once againe vnder preteÌ„ce of a litle simplicitie and most rude and simple sophistrie a fourth fault haue you made worse then the former running first from one sense to an other and then from one worde to an other and so in fine whiles you would seeme to make S. Peter speake clearly and plainly you make him speake falsly heretically whereof forthwith I shal haue occasion to treate The place which you cite out of Nazianzene oportet Christum a coelo recipi maketh no more for you then doth the article of our Creede ascendit ad coelos or sedet ad dexteram patris and I marueile what Catholike beleeueth the contrarie and therefore I let it passe As ye proceede the reason beginneth to appeare why you would so fayne haue that forged interpretation of Beza to stand for good For now you beginne to frame against the real presence argumeÌ„ts drawen from natural and mathematical conditions of a bodie whereby the reader may learne the more to detest and abhorre the whole race of your heretical translators For as our Sauiour saith in the field of his Catholike church in the night vvhen men vvere a slepe his enemie came and ouersovved cockle among the vvheate and vvent his vvay and some time passed before the cockle thus sowen appeared in like maner these feedemen of the same aduersarie wicked corrupters of the good feede and worde of Christ first fall a traÌ„slating of the scripture with many goodlie and plausible pretenses of gods honor the peoples commoditie and publishing gods blessed booke c. And so while no man thinketh amisse of them as it were in the night and darknes being espied of none among the good seede of god they mingle sow their owne wicked and abhommable darnel which at first is not seene but in tyme sheweth it selfe For when M.W. so smoothly went away with the matter and found fault with M. Martins ignorance for dislyking so plaine a thing when he told vs of actiues and passiues that there was no difference betwene the first quem oportet coelum capere and this second quem oportet coelo capi but that this later is more cleare and perspicuous who would haue supposed any great mischeefe to haue bene hidden therein But now euen thereof he frameth his principal argument to spoyle the church of Christes real presence VVith like sinceritie translate the Lutherans for their Lutherish the Brentians for their Vbiquitarie the Trinitaries of Pole for their Arian and Sebastianus Castalio for his Academical heresie sprinkling heare and there many drops of poyson with which symple soules are daungerously infected before the mischeuous practyse be of many discouered But let vs heare M. W. argument drawen as he would haue vs suppose from the former falsified text of scripture but in deede from Aristotle and Euclide If Christes body sayth he be natural and of the same substance that ours is then can it be conteyned but in one place and if it be in heauen it is not in the sacrament But Christs body is such a body consubstantial to ours in al things sauing glorie and immortalitie and that body of Christ is novv conteyned in heauen as Peter saith therefore it is not in the Sacrament much lesse in infinite Sacraments This argument feareth not your forces For if Christs body be together in heauen and in the sacrament then Christ hath a double body or rather infinite bodies but this is false ergo that Furthermore if Christs bodie be circumscribed vvith some certaine place in heauen and reteyneth all properties of a true body the selfe same in the sacrament be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incircumscript inuisible c. then contradictories maye be verified of the same bodye But this can not be therefore the other is vnpossible Of this kinde of reasoning which may be enlarged as far and amplified by as many circumstances as ether Geometrie or Philosophie or any sense seing hearing tasting handling or humaine reason or
presence VVell it may be that an other opinion more agreable to mans reason may please an idle mind especially if the opinion be furnished and commended vvith argumeÌ„tes vvel handled But vvhat shal become of vs intentation vvhen our coÌ„science shal be called to accompt vvhat cause vve had to dissent from the receaued opinion in the Church Then these vvordes This is my bodie vvil be thunderboltes So Ioachimus VVestphalus in his Apologie against Caluine answering this very argument the body of man is circumscribed in a place therefore at one time it can not be but in one place therefore not in al places vvhere the supper is ministred Is not saith he this Geometrical argumeÌ„t fetched froÌ„ Euclides demonstrations the piller and vpholder of all these Sacramentaries Doth not this vphold the building of their syllogismes vvhich corrupt verie many places of scriptures Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries that memorable saying Take from heretikes that vvherein they agree vvith Philosophers and they cannot stand Take from the Sacramentaries that vvhich they dravv from Philosophie and hovv smal a quantitie vvill remaine of the great volumes of al the Sacramentaries Hovv long vvil it be before the doctrine of Berengarius fall to the ground VVel and truly vvrote Tertullian that Philosophers are the Patriarches of heretikes For philosophie brought forth all heresies and she begat the error of Zuinglius Finally because the English church in their Apologie acknowledgeth Luther for a most excellent man sent from God to lighten the vvhole vvorld and M. VV. saith that they vvorshippe him as their father in Christ I answere as that excellent man of God and their father answered long ago His discourse being longe I wil gather shortly the summe of it set it downe in his wordes If M.VV. would be better satisfied I remitte him to the maine worke First he confesseth this argument to be fundamentum quod habent omnium praecipuuÌ„ the chief ground foundation of the Sacramentaries But he asketh vvhat scripture they haue to proue that these tvvo propositions be so directly contrary Christ sitteth in heauen and Christ is in the supper whereas they can bring none he concludeth The contradiction is in their carnal imagination not in faith or the vvord of God vvhich teacheth no such matter Next vvhere-as Gods povver surpasseth al cogitatioÌ„ vvorketh that vvhich is to our reason incomprehensible and vvhich only faith beleeueth and the same God said This is my body vvhich shal be deliuered for you hovv can I persvvade my conscience saith he that God hath nether meanes nor abilitie to do as his vvordes sound Then he sheweth that although in the mind of man these thinges are contrary yet in the mind of God they worke no more repugnance then Mary bringing forth in her virginitie is against that vniuersal sentence Increase and multiplye or this proposition Christ is God ouerthroweth this other that Christ is man Out of which thus premised he falleth in to a vehement exhortatioÌ„ that al ChristiaÌ„s beware of the Sacramentaries in this kind of argument for so much as directly thereby they draw men to Paganisme and infidelitie the principal partes of our faith being in like sorte subiect to the controle of carnal reason humaine philosophie Boni isti Sacramentarii saith he sua nausea aditum parant ad Christum Deum ipsum omnes articulos abnegandum c. These good SacrameÌ„taries by their lothsomenesse make a vvay to denie Christ and God him selfe and al articles of our faith and truly for a great part they haue already begoÌ„ne to beleeue nothing For they bring themselues vvithin the compasse of reason vvhich is the right vvay to damnation and them selues knovv that these Ethnicall cauils ether are nothing vvorth against this article or if they coÌ„clude ought against this they do the like against al. For the vvord of God is foolishnes to mans reason 1. Cor. 1. and they vvould neuer haue vttered this if they had any regard of the scripture and vvere not their harts ful of infidelitie so as their mouth speaketh of the abundance of their hart After this he noteth the vnequal dealing of the Sacramentaries This truly saith he is vvorthy of admiratioÌ„ that none of the fathers vvhereof there is an infinite number did euer speake so of the Sacrament as do the Sacramentaries but cleane contrary Yet notvvithstanding if perchauÌ„ce they fal vpoÌ„ some odd place in a doctor that soundeth tovvardes their opinioÌ„ as vvhere S. Aug. saith corpus Christi in vno loco esse potest here saith Luther by reason of their preiudicate opinion they snatch at that make much of it vvhereas othervvise against the saings of all the fathers they are most stiffe and stubburne and sensles more vnmoueable then is any rocke amiddest the sea and though the fathers all vvith one mouth affirme yet the Sacramentaries harden them selues to deny them Last of all against Zuinglius and Oecolampadius vsing in their bookes the selfe same reasons which M. W. vseth here and triumpheth so insolently he concludeth as I conclude against him If these be the grounds and reasons vvhich should certifie vs of truth approue our faith and confirme our conscience then truly vve are in euill casâ— If a man had deliuered me such bookes vvithout title and name and I knevv not othervvise such excellent and learned men to haue bene the authors of them I should surely haue thought that some iâ—sting Comediant or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians Verily I see not hovv they can be excused vvith any probable pretence as many other heretikes haue had For it appeareth that they play vvith Gods vvord of vvilfulnes malice And I thinke it can not be that such cold toyes and bablinges should in deede moue a Turke or a Ievv much lesse a Christian But that great lothsomenes and disdaine of the sacred supper and immoderate greedines to defend their opinion maketh them so mad or giddie that vvhat-soeuer they take hold of though it be but a stravv yet they imagine it to be a svvorde or a speare and that at euerie stroke they kill thousandes This is the terrible argument so magnified by M. W. quod impetus nostros non pertimescit that feareth not our forces an argument which plucketh vp the verie rootes of Christianitie gain saith many places and histories of the Scripture and maketh frustrate the testameÌ„t of Christ an argument carnal ethnical and for such contemned of the auncient fathers and condemned by the late heretikes of greatest learning an argument which Luther would neuer beleeue could proceede but from a Turke had he not seene it in the bookes of some of the Zuinglian Sect vsurping the name of Christians such an argument as he accompteth them heretikes wilful and inexcusable who are ought moued therewith finally such an argument
question Elizeus might haue and had no doubt his minde in heauen with Elias by your commentarie and sense far greater was the facte of Elias then that of Christ For the cloke was a far better and more liuely figure of Elias then youre bread and wine is of Christ By it Elizeus receaued greate grace strength as writeth S. Chrisostome as by the which he fought agaynst the deuill and vanquished him That your bread should geue any grace it is agaynst your whole doctrine and Zuinglius laboureth to proue it at large in sundrie places callinge it papisticall to say that any sacrament euen baptisme doth aliquid momenti conferre ad sanctificationem aut remissionem peccatorum profite any iote to sanctifie or take avvay synne Elizeus by that cloke wrought straunge miracles so did you by your figuratiue bread neuer nor neuer shall so longe as the worlde standeth Briefly whereas Elizeus cloke cariynge with it such vertue and power was a thing surmounting the abilitie and reach of man and could not be done but by the omnipotencie of god your bread being nothing but a signe or banner as it were a may-pole or token of a tauerne by Zuinglius his owne confession the king of Fraunce or Spaine can make ten thousande as good And the truth is they can make much better because theirs do no harme wheras yours leade men the hye way to damnatioÌ„ Wherefore youre answere to this place of S. Chrisostome is to to fond and childish And hereby we may haue a gesse how substanciallye you are like to deale with the next which is taken out of the same father I must needes write it doune somewhat at large for the readers better vnderstanding of vs both It is in his thirde booke de sacerdotio where he setteth forth the high estate of the priestes of the new Testament and that acte wherein priesthode especiallye consisteth that is the sacrifice thus he writeth This priesthode it selfe is exercised in earth but is to be referred to the order and revv of thinges celestiall and that for good reason because no mortall man no angell no archangell no creature but the holy Ghost him self framed this order Terrible vvere the thinges dreadfull vvhich vvere before the tyme of grace in the lavv of Moyses as vvere the litle bells pomegranats pretious stones in the breast of the prieste the mitre golden plate sancta sanctorum c. But if a man consider these thinges vvhich the tyme of grace hath brought to vs he vvil iudge all those thinges vvhich I called terrible and dreadfull to be but light and though glorious yet not comparable vvith the glorie of the nevv testament as S. Paule saith This being laide before as it were a preface or preparatiue to that which foloweth he then coÌ„meth to that place out of which M. W. culleth certaine wordes For sayth he vvhen thou seest our Lord sacrificed and the prieste earnestlie intent to the sacrifice and pouring out his prayers and the people about him imparted and made red vvith that pretious bloud thinkest thou thy self to conuerse amongest mortall men and remaine on the earth And immediatly ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem ô miracle ô singular goodnes of God he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the self same moment of tyme is handled vvith all mens handes and deliuereth him self to those that vvill receaue and imbrace him and this is done playnlie in the sight of all men vvithout any deceate or illusion Of this place M. Martin inferreth that M.W. reasoning Christ is in heauen ergo not in the Sacramet is wicked refuted by the old fathers But M.W. replyeth no. And I vvil geue you your ansvvere sayth he out of the same place for here Chrysostome affirmeth that vve see our Lord sacrificed in the supper and the people imparted and made red vvith the bloud and that this is done in the open sight of all that are presente But vvho seeth ether our Lord truâ—y sacrificed or one droppe of bloud vvith vvhich the people are made red so as all see it as Chrisostome vvriteth Therefore as vve see Christ sacrificed and the people embrued vvith his bloud so vve receaue him in our handes In these vvordes Chrysostome vvould both amplifie the dignitie of priestes vnto vvhom Christ gaue povver to minister the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud and make the people afrayde that they vvhich come to this supper should bring vvith them godlie and religious myndes as though they should take Christ him selfe in their handes The substance of the answere is this Chrysostome in the same place sayth we see Christ offered which in truth is not so but by a figuratiue speach therefore when he saith Christ is in heauen and in the Sacrament it is not simplie true but by like phrase and figure But whereunto then tende al these great wordes and perswasions of this father to honour the priests office and make the people afrayed and were there priestes in the church in those days No. but by priestes you must vnderstand mâ—nisters and then a simili by the sacrifice he speaketh of that is the masse you must vnderstand the CommunioÌ„ that is by Catholike relâ—gion you must vnderstande heresie and by light darkâ—es But I wil go thorough the branches of this answere in order First whereas you make that a thing most assured and certaine that no man seeth Christ offered except you meane in your English supper you are greatly deceaued For in the church Catholike we see Christ offered and that not in phrase of speach only as the protestaÌ„ts may be said to do iniurie to Christ when they abuse his image but in veritie and truth of doctrine And S. Chrysostome with the rest of the fathers neuer thought or spake otherwise How oft hath S. Chrisostome quâ—d summo honore dignum est id tibi â—n terra â—stendam That vvhich deserueth most honor that vvil I shevv thee on earth and in the same place The royal body of Christ is in heaueÌ„ vvhich novv in earth is set before thee to be seene I shevv vnto thee not angels not archangels not heauens not heauen of heauens but I shevv thee the verie Lord him selfe of al these Perceauest thou not hovv not only thou seest in earth and touchest but receauest also the soueraine and principall thing that is And in the same place This body vvhich thou seest on the altar the vvise men adored in the manger But it were tedious to note out such places which are common in euery booke This rather I would wishe M. W. to vnderstand that where it hath pleased God in certaine creatures to exhibite his presence after a more special and singular sort there in a more special and singular maner truely we may ought to beleeue that we see our Lord. God is by essence power and operation present in euerie creature yet in seing a
the cuppe or chalice vvhich he speaketh presupposing his heresie to be true therefore I haue made this alteration sayth he That he neuer found among all his auncient copies latin or greeke any one reading as he translateth himselfe also confesseth Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant Albeit I thus translate yet all our old auncient bookes had it othervvise that is so vvritten as it is commonly read and as the papistes vvould haue it Wherefore this beinge his fault that vpon priuate fansie to serue his peculiar heresie he hath altered the very letter and text of the Gospel is he a Christian is he a common heretike nay is he not worse then a Iew then a Turke then the worst kinde of Paganes that pretendinge the name of a Christian will defende suche a vile caitife and monster directly against the sacred Euangelist our blessed Sauiour him selfe and yet forsooth because this man is not only a great piller but also for some great parte a very coyner of this nevv Gospel as it vvere their very Euangelist for much of their text is made by him he must needes be defended though the old Euangelistes go to vvracke for it Pardon me ChristiaÌ„ reader if I seeme somevvhat vehement their dealing being such that if men held their peace the very infaÌ„tes yea the very stones vvould speake as saith our Sauiour And vvithal consider thou vvhen they vvil geue ouer those barbarous Paradoxes of feminine primacie of baptisme not remitting sinnes of their tropical bread c. vvherein they staÌ„de only against the Catholiks or at the most against vs and their brethren the Lutherans when as they wil not geue ouer but continevv and mainteyne their trayterous and Satanicall action commenced against our blessed Sauiour But if vve may vvithout sinne spend time in hearing what they haue to say against him let vs attend M. Whitaker and waygh what he dareth vtter in that behalfe Thus he disputeth The vvordes of Luke are This cuppe is the nevv testament in my bloud that is if vve folovv M. Martins interpretation This bloud is the nevv testameÌ„t in my bloud vvhich is shedd for you vvhat sense is there of these vvords M. Martin and vvhat doubte bloud is this See you not here a manifest repetition of the same thing rising of your interpretation VVherefore seing your sentence is plainely absurde vvho vvil not rather vvith Beza say there is a faulte in the vvordes or vvith Basil reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First of all to beginne you somewhat misreporte M. Martin in sayng that he interpreteth Hic sanguis est nouum testamentum in sanguine meo this bloud is the nevv testament in my bloud For though he deduce that by necessarie consequence yet is it an other thing to say he interpreteth it so The interpretation he geueth you precisely out of S. Chrysostome hoc quod est in calice illud est quod fluxit de latere that vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich flovved out of Christs syde which also S. Leo the greate very diuinelye expresseth Fudit sanguinem instum qui reconciliando mundo et pretium esset et poculuÌ„ he shed the iust bloud vvhich should be both the price the cuppe to reconcile the vvorlde the one in his passion on the crosse the other in the sacrameÌ„t at his last supper whereof though you may truly infer that the bloud of Christ in the chalice is the selfe same bloud that flowed out of the syde of Christ as here S. Leo doth yet talking exactly of propositions you may finde a greate difference As if a man pointing to you should saye this man is a Caluinist or heretike he sayth in deed this Caluinist is a Caluinist yet can you not deny but there is a greate difference in the proposition VVherefore we holde you to the wordes and sense of the Euangelist as your greate Rabbine setteth them doune hoc est sanguis mens noui testamenti This cuppe is my bloud of the nevv testament which is the selfe same without any the least difference which M. Martin geueth you out of S. Chrysostome Now what haue you against it Oh say you it is tautologia an absurd repetition of the selfe same thinge for vvhat double bloud is this First why lye you so grossly and intolerably as to say here is mention of double bloud If I say this Christ is Christ the sonne of God this Messias is the Messias Sauiour of the world this God is God of heauen and earth finde you mentioned a double Christ a double Messias a double God as here you finde double bloud if we say this bloud is the bloud of the new testament Againe lett the reader see if you be not possessed vvith a sprite of giddines and what a miserable surgeon you are who going about to cure Bezaes wounde wouÌ„de your selfe as deepely and whiles you endeuour to excuse his Atheisme and impietie runne headlonge on the same rocke your selfe For what is Bezaes faulte this that to helpe forth his Zuinglian heresie he corrected S. Luke in the later parte of the sentence shedde for you and altered that accordinge to his fansie How doth M. W. mende this by rayling at the first parte This cuppe is the bloud of the nevv Testament for this saith he is tautologia here is double bloud here is an absurd sentence So that now betwene you and Beza S. Luke hath neuer a worde right Beza reprouing and mending the later parte and you being as saucie with the former Is not this well defended Now graunt we al these faults of â—autâ— ogia an absurde sentence an idle repetition c. where lie these faults doubtlesse not so much in the Euangelist who wrote them as in our Sauiour who spake them Suppose I say it seeme harde to your delicate and Ciceronian eares must therefore Christ be sett to schole to learne his lesson of that fierbrande of sedition that sinke gulfe of iniquitie Theodore Beza and what is the absurditie you find in these words mary that that vvhich vvas in the chalice vvas shedde for our sinnes and therefore consequently it was the real bloud of our Sauiour which is plaine Papistrye and against our Communion booke Is it so Then to hell with your Communion booke and you to if that be so opposite to the Gospel of Christ you dare mainteyne it by open checking and controling Christ the eternall wisdome of God And see what rouel we shal haue in scripture if this vnchristian diuinitie go forward And alwayes I desyre the reader to remember that I am by force constrayned to remaine in this base kinde of talkinge in so plaine a matter against these enemies of Christ that seeme to haue lost the common senses of men S. Iohn the Baptist beholding Christ saith Ecce agnus dei ecce quitollit peccata mundi Behold the lambe of God Behold the lambe
now it is far othervvise and othervvise your selues translate it in your later bible their line is gone forth although in the bible of the yeare 1577. ye leaue the hebrew and folovv vs. Take heede saith the same Apostle lest that fal vpon you vvhich is spoken in the Prophetes See ye contemners and vvonder and perish which wordes in the hebrew are nothing so Shal we saie this is not scripture and the Apostle abused his audience and according to M. VV. diuinitie must needes tel them a lye when he telleth them this saith the Prophete this saith Esaie this Ieremie c. because he citeth the wordes not according to the original but according to the translation of the 70. which many times much varieth from that which we find now in the original The Apostle S. Iames reprouing the prowde and loftie mindes of some bringeth this text of scripture against them deus superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam translated in your English testaments thus The scripture offereth more grace and therefore saith God resisteth the proude and geueth grace to the humble vvhich vvordes are taken out of the Prouerbes of Salomon but not according to the hebrevv but after the 70. vvhich Caluin cut cleane avvay and leaft out of his translation ether for this reason vvhich you geue or because belike they agreed not vvel vvith his proude and disdainful stomake notvvithstanding they remaine in the greeke testaments printed at Geneua But by your argument he doth wel therein and saueth S. Iames from a manifest lie who affirmeth the scripture to speake so whereas by yow it is no scripture And then it were wel done of yow to mend your testaments at the next edition and leaue out this so cleare a falshode except yow retaine it of policie that at a neede yow may haue one more reason to refuse this epistle which we see graueleth yow so sore I wil not multiplie exāples because it is a thing most euident and he knoweth litle that knoweth not this to be the common maner both of some Euangelists of S. Peter and S. Paule generallie to cite the scripture in this sort VVhereof S. Paules epistle to the Hebrues in euerie chapter almost geueth proofe as likewyse doth the first of S. Peter and Beza graunteth the same of the Euangelists the auncient fathers affirme both the one the other And what neede I to presse M. W. with sentences whereas I may dispute against him out of whole chapters and bookes For let vs suppose some part of the old testament to haue bene written first in hebrew or chaldee as is a part of Daniel and to haue bene translated into greeke or latin afterwardes the chaldee or hebrue to perish the greeke or latin to remaine as for example we see in the bookes of Tobie Iudith and one booke of the Machabees The two first of which S. Hierom translated out of the chaldee the third he found though he translated it not written in hebrue And the like is thought verie probably of the songe of the three children Shal we now be so fond as to imagine that as so one as the hebrue or chaldee was lost we lost our scriptures then what saie you to S. Matthewes gospel which certainly was written by him in hebrue as witnesseth Papias Ireneus Eusebius Pātenus Origenes Sophronius S. Hierom and al antiquitie Haue we not S. Matthewes gospel because vve haue not his hebrue text nay presuppose that a gospel of S. Matthevv in hebrue may be found as you knovv such a one is extant and setting aside the authoritie of the Church vvhich to yovv is nothing no reason can be brought but yovv ought as vvel to admit that for the original as the greeke of S. Luke and S. Iohn yet dare yovv prefer that before the greeke and count that the more autētical reforme the greeke according to that hebrue this one example if M. VV. had the grace to consider and the ground hereof it vvere sufficient to ansvvere vvhatsoeuer he saith in his idle discourse in praise of the greeke hebrue for defacing the latin But let vs examine his reason vvherein lieth the pith of this questiō Thus he declaimeth for the puritie of the greeke and hebrue VVhereas vve couet to attaine the meaning of the holy Ghost hovv shal vve do this more assuredly then if vve heare the holy Ghost speaking in his ovvne vvordes This is so cleare that the Papistes them selues confesse it to be necessarie if so be the first original copies vvere pure vncorrupt For now they crie that the old testament in the hebrue fountaine and the nevv testament in the greeke is most corrupt vvhy so vvhat causeth our Papistes so to refuse the hebrue and greeke fountaine and to hunt after the litle riuer of the latin edition vvho doubteth but it is done for that only reason because they find the fountaines to be not so commodious for them For if they had the fountaines fauorable inough they vvould rather take thence then from the diches and dregges of a corrupt translation Novv because they knovv that certaine destruction hangeth ouer their heads if they be called to the fountaines therefore are they constrained not only to auoyde the spring of the purest and most holesome vvaters but also they labour to proue that the litle riuers are purer then the fountaines Here Reader thou hast many wordes and litle matter much a doe and smale reason much craking and boasting of the pure fountaines by one who from his infancie neuer dranke but of the stinking puddles of Geneua lake In which discourse of his three thinges may be learned First that he confesseth of vs that we refuse not the fountaines but because we thinke them to be corrupt Wherein he saith truly and whereby thou maist note that in folowing the latin as we doe we are lead not as they are by fansie and panges but by conscience and iudgment The second is that he affirmeth it as a thing without al doubt that thus we say because the foūtaines be not so cōmodious for vs. once againe because the fountaines are not fauorable inough vnto vs. and yet once againe because vve knovv there is no vvay vvith vs but death and destruction if vve he called to the fountaines whereof because I haue spokē alreadie I wil say no more only this may serue for an example what a lustie courage they can shew in bragging and what a pretie feate they haue in so few lynes to varie a lye so many wayes And if M. W. had geuen but one example wherein he by his hebrue greeke text could so plage vs and bring vs certam perniciem assured destruction he had done somewhat like a professor of this new diuinitie and it were a readie way to end al these controuersies Because he doth not and I dare warrant him
they I shal I doubt neuer be vvorthie to be named scholers example vvhereof take thou Charkes scornful abusing of Father Campian in the Tower for ignorance in such trifles as these are or were I disposed to disgrace the fountaines and originals which I am not but honour them as I may and sauing the euident truth and faith of Christ which standeth fast and vnmoueable though heauen and earth fall much more though the Iewish Pharisees and Scribes write their text amisse this cause faith I say foreprised I esteeme of them as of things deseruing much studie and reuerence because how soeuer some grosse errors partly of malice partly of ignorance haue crept in yet commonly and for the most part the text I hold to be true and sincere And againe I suppose this kinde of writing can not be but tedious to the English reader whose profit I principally intend and therefore will go from these particularities so far as I may to talke of a few resonable the same general arguments and questions wherein M.W. if he haue some part of that wit intelligence and modestie which a scholer diuine should haue wil not I hope much stande against me And first gladly would I learne of him what reason he and his fellowes haue why they should thinke the hebrew text to be so inuiolate so sincere and vpright is it because of Gods promise and prouidence or of mans circuÌ„spection and wisdome if because of Gods promise where finde they any such how many examples in the scriptures haue they to the contrarie whole bookes of the prophetes are perished bookes of singular coÌ„moditie made by Gods owne appointment and they perished then in that time of the sinagoge when Iacob vvas the peculiar people of God and Israel the lot of his inheritance when of al nations they vvere to God a holy nation a kingly priesthode when al other people vvere suffered to go their ovvne vvaies the Iewes only were in Gods special protection For touching the bookes of the auncient prophets somtime extant and now not appearing we reade coÌ„monly in the old testameÌ„t as of Liber bellorum domini The booke of the vvarres of our Lord The booke of the iust men The booke of Iehu the sonne of Hanani The bookes of Semeias the prophete and Addo and Samuel vvrote in a booke the lavv of the kingdome hovv kings ought to rule laid it vp before our lorde and the vvorkes of Salomon vvere vvritten in the vvordes of Nathan the Prophete and in the bookes of Ahias the Silonite and in the visioÌ„ of Addo the Seer and many other which were to long to rehearse VVhich entier bookes of the warres of our lord of the iust of those excellent prophets of Iehu of Semeias of Addo of Samuel of Nathan of Ahias and others are quite perished and perished then when the Iewes were so chosen a people such a kingdome in such order gouernment of Kings and princes and Senate ecclesiastical regiment And now when they are no people haue no gouernment no king no Priest no comparable regiment may we reasonably thinke their diuine and ecclesiasticall bookes to haue bene so warelie kept that euerie parte is safe euerie parcel sound no points letters or titles lost al sincere perfit and absolute If the protestaÌ„ts will claime this to them by mans wisdome and policie see how notably they contradicte themselues Al the bishops and princes and states of Christendome were not wise inough by the protestants opinioÌ„ these thousande yeres past to keepe them selues in the true religion and Gospell of Christ But whereas vntil 600. yeres as we learne by M. Iewels chalenge they were protestants and enemies of the Masse of the Real presence of the Pope of Rome and as M. W. telleth vs here vniuersally protestaÌ„ts quo ad praecipuas religionis partes in the principall parts of religion they fell from that pure protestant-Gospel to serue Antichrist to worship bread and wine for God to adore Images which is most grosse idolatrie in steed of a true bible and word of God to haue our coÌ„mon translation which is most impure fullest of corruptioÌ„ Al this M.W. telleth vs and he telleth vs in this booke and it is the common songe of them al. And therefore how is it credible that al this while the Iewes should be so wise so prudent so politike and circuÌ„specte that they admitted no faults kept their bible so sincere and immaculate that there only the water of life was reserued and the minde meaning of the holie Ghost vvas to be found no-vvhere so assuredly as there what is this but to make the Christians al this while more brutish then beastes and the Iewes almost equal to Angels Againe so great likenes and similitude is there betwene some hebrew letters that excellent learned men haue bene deceaued by mistaking one for an other as appeareth by comparing the olde translations of the bible with the later and S. Hierom affirmeth the same of the Septuaginta This if a man would declare by examples I thinke he might gather some hundreds out of the psalter I wil note only one verse of a short psalme which also may serue for a higher pointe In the psalme 109 after our translation thus we reade with the Septuaginta Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex vtero ante luciferum genuite The ProtestaÌ„ts for the more parte as we see by Marlorate folowing therein Bucere Musculus Caluine and Pomerane translate it thus Populus tuus cum voluntariis oblationibus in die exercitus tui in pulchritudine sanctitatis ex vtero ab aurora tibiros adolescentiae tuae The english bible of the last edition differing notably both froÌ„ olde and new from vs and the Protestants translate thus Thy people shal come vvillingly all the time of assembâ—ing thine armie in holie beauty the youth of thy vvoÌ„be shal be as the morning devv which translation is farthest from the hebrew farthest from al sense and reason for who would make youth to rule vvombe and ioyne them together being sundred so far and the bible geuen out two yeres before hath scant one worde like and touching the later part is cleane opposite for thus it translateth In the day of thy pâ—vvâ—r shal the people offer thee free-vvil offeringes the devv of thy birth is of the vvombe of the morning there is youth of the vvombe and devv of the morning here is devv of the birth or youth for that is one word in hebrew and vvombe of the morning If a man would translate it precisely vsing only the libertie to make choise of diuers significations which the hebrew words yelde and drawe it so far as the hebrew wil beare to the sense of the Septuaginta which I take to be the best then word for word thus it should
whether we or they loue vnaccustomed and monstruous noueltie of words we who striue so much as we may to retaine the auncient words left to vs by our Apostles and founders Masse Bishop Priest Baptisme Church the very names of meÌ„ Isaie Amos Iuda Hierusalem Ezechias Ozias or they who haue turned these in to the Supper or the Thankes-geuing Superintendent Minister or Elder VVashing Congregation who vpon most childish affectation to seeme somwhat skilful in the hebrew reduce al sacred names to the old Iudaical sound As for example one of their greatest Euangelists thus beginneth his translation of Esaie The vision of Iesaaiahu the sonne of Amoz vvhich he savv vpon Iehudah and vpon Hierusalam in the daies of Yziiahu Iotham Ahhaz Iehhizkiiahu Kinges of Iehudah And this is the common veyne of their preachers if they know a litle especially in that lanâ—â—nge as though Petrus Ioannes Iacobus Stephanus howsoeuer they be vttered in any other tonge Hebrew Greeke Latin Spanish FreÌ„ch or ItaliaÌ„ were not truly exactly expressed in English by Peter Iohn Iames Steuin but must needes be pronouÌ„ced as they are in the first laÌ„guage froÌ„ which originally they are deriued as though a maÌ„ translating some storie out of French or Spanish into English translated not wel if he said FrauÌ„cis the French King in his warres against the Spaniards but must needes say Fransois King of the Fransois in his warres against the Espanioulx or los EspanÌ„oles in such a victorie against los Franceses in steede of The Spaniards in such a victorie against the Frenchmen And why then do they not in the new testament vse like noueltie why for Christ vse they not Ieschua for our Lady MiriaÌ„ for S. Peter Cepha for S. Iohn Iochanan and so in the rest of the Apostles whereas they know that thus were they called in their proper language as at this preseÌ„t we see in S. Matthewes hebrevv Gospel If their ovvne eares abhor this wanton curiositie and their ovvne iudgment tel theÌ„ it is apish arrogancie peevish affectation of popular praise let them confesse the like in pronouncing Beltshazzar Nebucadnezzar Iehuda Iehhizkiiahu for Baltasar Nabugodonosor Iuda Ezechias for the case is al one Much more haue they committed this monstruous noueltie in the things them selues in taking away the sacrifice of the new testament like the forerunners of Antichrist in yelding to women and children the headship and supreme gouernement of the Church in al Ecclesiastical spiritual matters in abrogating fiue or six sacramentes of seauen in deuising such a kind of faith as before their time was neuer heard of and is more fit for the schole of Epicure then of Christ and so forth in the rest of their negatiue irreligion And as for mocking and contemning the word of God this was neuer so proper peculiar to any heretikes before as it is to them For who are they that mocke at the booke of Iudith that compare the booke of Machabees to Robin Hoode or Beauis of Hampton that cal the Prophete Baruch a peeuish ape of Ieremie Simia est non admodum saeâ—ix Ieremiae that accounte the epistle to the Hebrewes Pro stipulis as stubble that reiecte S. Iames epistle as made of stravve that contemne S. Lukes gospel that mangle many other partes of the scriptures and thereby teach the contempt of them al al standing vpoÌ„ like ground Who doe this VVe or they Catholikes or Gospellers to speake briefly what is their whole maner of writing preaching teaching and liuing but a very mockerie of the gospel of Christ such filthie application of holy write as sheweth them to vse it for no other purpose but for colour and shrowd of their filthines Rebuke a leacherous monke for his incest which he calleth Matrimonie ô saith he Better it is to mary then to burne Require of him that he chastise his body with fasting and discipline for repressing of his beastly concupisceÌ„ce that is against Gods word saith he For nemo carnem suam odio habuit No man hateth his ovvne flesh but loueth cherisheth it when such an Apostata is promoted amongst you to be a superintendeÌ„t and then spoileth his tenants wasteth his woods pulleth downe his housâ—â—â— neuer built by him or for him or any of his religion selleth away lead tile stone and maketh mony of al reproue him for this oppression and rauin he hath his text ready He that prouideth not for his ovvne and namely for them of his hovvsehold he is vvorse then an Infidel These interpretations vvorse then these very many shal you finde in Peter Martyrs booke De votis et caelibatu And at this present what is the vniuersal preaching of the ministers for the most part but a very mockery ridiculous abuse of scripture what other is their coÌ„mon writing and M.VV. in the next chapt wil shew himself in this kinde as very a scorner as the worst And whereas after al this he saith Truely so far of is it that I thinke your translatioÌ„ vvil any vvayes harme our cause that I vvish the copies thereof vvere multiplied and other men might be partakers thereof This is as fowle a figure of hypocrisie as any hitherto touched For if they thinke it wil no wayes hinder their cause but rather benefite it why make they such busie inquirie after it why burne they such as fal in to their hands are they such witles babes as â—ain not suffer that which doth them good CoÌ„pare good reader their doinges their preachings their searchings inquiries with this speach and thou shal sensibly perceaue that it is nought els but a very desperat facing out of a lye and setting a bold countenance on that which in deede pincheth them at the very hart roote With like phrase character of shamelesse vauÌ„ting wrote M. Iewel to D. Harding vve neuer suppressed any of your books M. Harding as you knovve but are very vvel content to see them so common that as novv children may play vvith them in the streetes Thus his face serued him to write then when in the self same Defence he suppressed by leauing out the very substance of that booke which he then pretended to answere when by helpe of his felow-Superintendents and other frends euery corner of the realme was searched for those bookes when the portes were layed for them Paules crosse is witnes of burning many of them the Princes proclamation was procured against them in the Vniuersities by soueraigne authoritie Colleges chambers studies closets coffers and deskes were ransackt for them when not only children were forbid to play with them but auncient mâ—â—â— and students of Diuinitie were imprisoned for hauing of them So that al this can be nought els but a plaine example of palpable dissimulation affected lying Ad populum phaleras when intrinsecally they feare and labour and sweate and by exterior signes declare thus much and
holy Ghost to craue the praiers of sinful flesh which implieth sume feare of falling humane imbecillâ—â—ie then to excuse the maner of the stiâ—e and writing and in that respect Craue pardon of sinful flesh which is a thing of farre lesse preiudice And yet this doth the Spirite of God almost in euery epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes to the Corinthians to the Ephesians to the Colossians to the Thessalonians c. Thus standeth the note Hereby vve see that though the Holy Ghost ruled the penne of holy vvriters that they might not erre yet did they vse humane meanes to search out and find the truth of the things they vvrote of Euen so doe Councels and the President of them Gods vicar discusse and examine al causes by humane meanes the assistance of the Holy Ghost concurring and directing them into al truth according to Christes promise 10.16.13 as in the very first Councel of the Apostles them selues at HierusaleÌ„ is manifest Act. 15 7. and 28. Againe here vve haue a familiar preface of the Author as to his frende or to euery godly Reader signified by Theophilus concerning the cause and purpose and maner of his vvriting and yet the very same is confessed scripture vvith the vvhole booke folovving Maruel not then if the author of the second booke of the Machabees vse the like humane speaches both at the beginning and in the later end nether do thou therefore reiect the booke for no Scripture as our heretikes doe or not thinke him a sacred vvriter The Angel vvissheth wel to meÌ„ of good vvil that is those vvhom God embraceth vvith his grace and mercy ergo men haue free vvill By this example a man may see what difference is betwene the old Gospel and the new If the wordes were â—easte as in the old time they were read and vnderstoode the consequent of this reason would haue held and so S. Augustine gathered whom we alleage But taking the word and sense as M. W. deliuereth it nether S. Augustine nor any other sober man did or would euer haue inferred such a consequent Our words are The birth of Christ geueth not peace of minde or saluation but to such as be of good vvill because he vvorketh not our good against our vvilles but our vvilles concurring August quaest ad Simplic li. 1. q. 2. tom 4. Christ vvent into Peters shippe ergo the vvhole church is Peters shippe This is of like qualitie with the second before noted It is only an allegory aptly and truly declared the substance whereof is vsual among the auncient fathers who cal many times the Catholike church by the name of Peters shipp And touching this special place S. Gregorie maketh no question but Christ so signified by this fact when he made choyse to enter into that shippe Thus he writeth Iesus a scended into Peters ship c. sitting there he preached to the multitudes Per nauem Petri quid aliud quam commissa Petro ecclesia designatur By Peters shippe vvhat els is signified but the church vvhich vvas commited to Peter To like purpose vpoÌ„ the same place writeth S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Bede The wordes of our annotation are these It is purposely expressed that there vvere tvvo shippes that one of them vvas Peters and that Christ vvent into that one and sate downe in it and that sitting he taught out of that shippe no doubt to signifie the church resembled by Peters ship and that in it is the chayre of Christ and only true preaching Barnabas laid dovvne the price of his land at the Apostles feete ergo vve must kisse the Popes feete If the Apostle S. Peter had not before told vs that heretiks in the later daies especially should be Illusores mockers and the Prophete Dauid named their general profession a Chayre or schoole of scorners CathedraÌ„ irrisorum we might by our owne experience haue learned thus much of the Protestant writers of our time who by this feate among the popular haue brought into contempt the grauest partes of Christian religion and haue much shaken the obedience due both to spiritual and ciuil magistrates By this chiefely the Lutherans refel the article of Christes Ascension and being in heauen as we see in BreÌ„tius By this the Zuinglians refute Christs desceÌ„ding into hel as we see in maister Carlile and disproue the real presence whereof their common preachings and writings are witnes By this as a very plausible meane the Germane ministers stirred the people against their Emperour Charles the fift as vve reade in Sleidan And hovv like M. W. is vnto them for his smale talent by most of these his merie conclusions it appeareth In this present hovv far his vnreasonable collection differeth from our reasonable admonition the discrete reader may easely iudge Our vvordes are Barnabas as the reâ— did not only giue his goods as in vulgar almes but in al humble and reuerent maner as things dedicated to God he layed theÌ„ dovvne at the Apostles holy seete as S. Luke alvvaies expresseth and gaue them not into their hands The Sunamite sel dovvne and embraced Elisaeus feete Many that asked benefites of Christ as the vvoman sick of the bloudy fluxe fel dovvne at his feete and Marie kissed his feete Such are signes of due reuerence done both to Christ and to other sacred persons ether Prophetes Apostles Popes or other representing his person in earth See in S. Hierom of Epipanius Bishop in Cypres hovv the people of Hierusalem of al sortes flocked together vnto him offering their children to take his blessing kissing his feete plucking the hemmâ—s of his garment so that he could not moue for the throng Ep 61 cap. 4. cont error Io. Hierosol The Eunuch of the Quene of AEthiopia came to Hierusalem to vvorship ergo pilgrimages to holy places are acceptable to God why this reason should not be allowable I can not gesse The Eunuch came a long iourney froÌ„ Aethiopia to Hierusalem there to worshippe God and is commended for so doing therefore if we goe in like maner to Rome or HierusaleÌ„ for like cause we are not to be blamed where is the dissâ—militude whence riseth the inequalitie what part is there not answerable that man to vs his fact to ours his intention to ours the beginning continuance and ende proportionable to ours euery part and parcel of his doing fully reseÌ„bled in ours If M.W. haue any hid imagination which we can not reach vnto let him imparte it we wil frame him a reasonable answere The marginal note vpon the wordes of S. Luke is this Note that this Aethiopian came to Hierusalem to adore that is on pilgrimage VVhereby vve may learne that it is an acceptable act of religion to go from home to places of greater deuotion and sanctification To Christ is geuen a name aboue al names that in the name of Iesus al knees should bovv
dealeth against the Iewes who could not be content that their leuitical priesthod and sacrifices of beastes should yeld to Chrâ—sts priesthod sacrifice of the Crosse for S. Paule discoursing of the infinite vertue power excelleÌ„cie of this aboue the former to haue vndertaken to handle the priesthod and sacrifice of the Church besides that it was very hard to explicate besides that the Hebrewes were very dul to conceaue both which reasons he geueth in the 5. chapter besides that the other matter was of it selfe large inough besides al this I say to haue vrged the Iewes with this secondary and dependeÌ„t sacrifice of the Church who as it beleeued not the first singular and soueraine sacrifice of the Crosse had bene as fond a part as if a man would teach a childe to ruÌ„ne before he can go or teach him to reade before he can speake or set on the roofe of the house before there be ether wal built or foundation laide At least wil M.VV. say you prefer the fathers before S. Paule and acknowledge them to write more properly and aptly of Christs priesthod then doth the Apostle This is a lye For we are not so wicked nether learne we to make any such odious coÌ„parisons betwene diuers instrumeÌ„ts of the holy Ghost For the consent of the vniuersal church and al fathers we gladly professe to be the voice of the holy Ghost And if al the fathers had bene ioyned in one in S. Paules case and hauing to do with such aduersaries at such time place and other circumstances they would not nether could haue written more aptly and properly then did S. Paule although afterwards they did more clearely and manifestly open that which S. Paule insinuated more closely and couertly and so would S. Paule haue done had he liued in their times So in like sort S. Peter in his sermon made to the Iewes touching Christs glory and resurrection calleth him A man approued of God by diuers vvonders and miracles He calleth him not God of God equal to his father Our Sauiour in his long exhortation made to his disciples before his passion speaking of his vnitie with his father expresseth not his coÌ„substantialitie with the father or diuinitie of the holy Ghost so clearely as did afterwardes S. Athanasius and the fathers in the Councel of Nice and Constantinople against the Arians and Macedonians nether for al that prefer we S. Athanasius and those Councels before S. Peter and our Sauiour nether say we that they spake more properly and aptly thereof then ether Christ or his principal Apostle or such like guegawes as this man ignorantly and maliciously obiecteth vnto vs. Christ spake most properly perfectly and absolutely according as his diuine wisedome knevv vvas most conuenient for that time and audience so did S. Peter so did S. Paule And yet this barreth not but the holy Ghost may so hath by the Church aftervvarde declared the same more euidently without any derogation to Christ or his Apostles Yet one scrupule more M. W. moueth At least this can not be denied but the Fathers talke much of the oblation of bread and wine which S. Paule omitteth and so we can not shift our hands but some ouersight we must impute to S. Paule and the holy Ghost Nothing lesse Or how soeuer by his profound subtilitie he thinketh to driue vs vnto this absurditie hereafter hitherto sure I am we haue vttered no word or sillable so vnchristiaÌ„ And therefore he belieth vs in sayng that we haue done the one or the other And the whole matter is answere sufficiently already Yet for more ful satisfaction I wil answere M. VV. by him selfe I aske him therefore whether Melchisedec did not sacrifice and by sacrificing foreshewed our Sauiours priesthod according to the arder of Melchisedec he can not deny for he hath graunted it in plaine termes in this very booke And yet S. Paule here maketh no expresse mention thereof Then by M. VV. iudgement S. Paule omitteth some principal part of Melchisedecs priesthod apperteyning to Christ and therefore if this be to find fault vvith S. Paule reprehend the holy Ghost then M.VV. findeth fault vvith S. Paule M. VV. reprehendeth the holy Ghost Againe let him recal to memorie his founder in diuinitie M. Iewel in that booke which M. VV. him selfe hath translated into latin Saith not he that Melchisedech by his bread and vvine signified the Sacrifice of the holy English communion M. VV. translateth it sacrificium sacrosanctae Communionis vvhere the vvhole people lifte vp their hands and harts vnto heauen and pray sacrifice together And where find you this sacrifice of the holy Communion in al S. Paules discourse ergo by the same reason M. Iewel also doth carp at S. Paule and reprehend the holy Ghost who omitte The sacrifice of your holy Communion prefigured by Melchisedech three thousand yeres at lest before ether Patriarch or Apostle or doctor or any good maÌ„ euer heard or thought or dreamed of it Againe Illyricus a LutheraÌ„ writeth vpon this very chapter somewhat more probably then ether M. VV. or M. Iewel that Melchisedech foreshewed his Communion after the Lutherish faith and that As Melchisedech by bread and vvine refreshed Abraham so Christ the true heauenly bread refresheth vs to life eternal His flesh is true nourishement and his bloud is true and healthful drinke Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Thus he so that the Zuinglians can fetch out of Melchisedecs sacrifice by their owne priuate authoritie without warrant of any ether doctor or father the sacrifice of their Communion and the Lutherans can find that theirs was prefigured likewise and though S. Paule mention nether of them that is not material so long as you hold your self within coÌ„passe of the Communion booke Lutherish or Zuinglian only when we say the same of the Communion and sacrifice of the Church and proue it by the authoritie of Damascene of Theodoretus of S. Hierom S. Ambr. S. Epiphanius S. Austin S. Leo S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom Eusebius Emissenus Lactantius Arnobius by al antiquitie by al fathers by al Councels by the vniuersal coÌ„sent of ChristendoÌ„ since the Apostles time we poore soules set S. Paule to schole we prefer the fathers before him we find fault with him we reprehend the holy Ghost we coÌ„mit intolerable blasphemie I know not whether a maÌ„ may rather laugh at their peeuish pride who knowing nothing take vpon them to controle al fathers or wonder at their incredible partialitie which hath so be reaft them of common witte and iudgement that they can perceaue a mote in deede no mote in our eye and can not feele a beame in their owne or rather lament their Pharisaical hardnes of hart ignorance whereto heresie hath brought them so grosse that nether they know the veritie of Catholike religion nor wel vnderstand the state of their owne phantastical gospel One more blasphemie he
of Protestāts pa. 411. M. W. inuectiue against the Annotations of the nevv Testament page 476. The summe thereof pa. 477. Annotations of the new Testament vvhat they cōteine pa. 484.485 what fault M.W. findeth in them 484.491 Blasphemie in the Annotations touching Christes Priesthod pa. 528.529 Ansvvered 530. vsque ad 542. blasphemie touching merite of vvorkes pa. 543. ansvvered 544 c. Hovv the Protestants fel to cal the Pope of Rome Antichrist in praef pa. 42. M. W. knovveth not vvel vvhat that Antichrist is against vvhom he vvriteth Ibid. pa. 4. The absurditie of that assertion Ibid. pa. 4. The impossibilitie of that opinion 52.53.54 The end of that doctrine 72.73 Arguments ridiculous made by M. W. and attributed to vs. pa. 497.498.499.502.504.510.511.513 such arguments tend to make a mockerie of al faith 516.517.521.522.523 S. Leo the great called Antichrist by Beza pa. 155. The first Apostles of our nation were Papistes and Massing priestes by the cōfession of our aduersaries p. 165.166 Auncient archheretikes the protestants forefathers in sundrie partes of their faith pa. 31.32 S. Athanasius called Sathanasius by the heretikes pa. 84. S. Austin called a blind bussard pa. 166 S. Austin most filthily abused and mangled by the Sacramentaries pa. 166.177 S. Austin a priest 65. S. Austin S. Hierom old papistes 121. B BEza a fierbrand of sedition pa. 231. VVriters against him pa. 232. He correcteth S. Luke and our Sauiour 233.234.236.241 and is defended by M. VV. in so doing 236.237 His reasons 238.239 Refuted ibid. et 240.241 Refuted long ago by Luther 257.258 how he correcteth the new Testament 260.261 Bezaes fault in excusable for ought M. VV. ether hath said or can say 250. He doubteth of a part of S. Iohns gospel 363.364 He furthereth the Anabaptistes against Christes incarnation of the B. virgin 368.369 See Translation of scripture Bible-beaters pa. 400. The Bible neuer so mangled by any as by the protestants 400.401 Their bible is no bible 404.405 See Scriptures Ceremonies in Baptisme pa. 504.505 C Catholike doctrine vnpossible to be ouercome by any heresie least of al by this of our time pa. 41. The name Catholike not applicable to the English religion praef 87.88 Caluin condemneth the auncient fathers for approuing Melchisedecs sacrifice pa. 60.61 Caluin for the real presence pa. 223. Carolostadius exposition of Christes wordes Hoc est corpus meum pa. 254. allovved by Zuinglius 255. Castalios translation of the Testament much commended by the protestants pa. 380. His discours that Christ is not the Messias praef pa. 67.68 The Church catholike after Christes time is euer populous and spread in many nations pa. 350. et praef pa. 62.63 She is the ground of al faith 442. built vpō a rocke vnmoueable 479. No good worke or martyrdom profiteth to saluation out of the Catholike Church 116.117 Infinite difference betvvene the Catholike cause and the Protestante pa. 556.557.558 No stay in faith out of the Catholike Church praef pa. 24. To say that the vvhole Church hath fayled is to deny Christes incarnation pref p. 56.57 58.59 to make him a lyer ib. 66.67 to deny him to be the true Messias ib. 68.69.70.71 The inuisible Church a poetical fansie pref pa. 60. refelled by Melanchton 60.61 by Caluin Oecolampadius and others 62.63.64 the Protestants sensibly cōtradict them selues in deuising it 64.65 The foundation of the English Protestant church pa 480.481.482 The antiquitie thereof 524. It is ful of Atheistes 410. S. Chrysostom for the real presence p. 188.208.215.217.218 his place comparing Christ vvith Elias pa. 207. It proueth inuincibly the real presence a pa. 204. vsque ad 214. S. Chrysost for the sacrifice pa. 214.215 He is almost as ful of lies as words by the protestants doctrine pa. 227. S. Ciril for the real presence p. 198.199.200 D S. Damascene for the real presence pa. 201.202 Dauid George vpon vvhat ground he denied Christ pref pa. 66. Defendere is vvel translated to reuenge pa. 464.465.466.467 The Doctors of the primitiue Church condemned by euery priuate sectarie in that vvherein they gain say his heresie pa. 82.83 by the Zuinglians for approuing the sacrifice of Melchisedech pa. 60. and Masse pa. 69.70.71.72 and for disallowing the mariage of priestes and votaries 83. by the Puritanes for allovving holydaies in the honour of Christ his Saintes 84. by the Trinitarians for acknovvledging the B. Trinitie 84. by the Lutherans for denying the Vbiquetie of Christs body 85. by M. W. for their doctrine of penance and vvorkes 82 11◠and for sayng that Antichrist is one man pref pa. 44.45 See vvorkes E Elias cloke the Zuinglians supper compared together pa. 212.213 Elias shal come before the day of iudgment pa. 494.495 English vvriters 478. their maner of vvriting 284.285.475 and disputing 477. more absurd then others pref pa. 6.7 Those of the English religion are not Protestants pref pa. 88. they are properly called Zuinglians or Sacramentaries ibi 89.90.91 by vvhat names they cal them selues praef pa. 91. hovv they are called by Acte of parlament ibi 21. F The true meaning of Only faith iustifying pa. 280.411.412 Libertinisme the end thereof 127.128 The nature of true Christian faith pa. 517.518.519 hovv one part of faith is applied to the confirmation of an other 521. Ecclesiastical maner of fasting commeth from Christ and his Apostles pa. 89.90 The Zuinglians figure in Christs wordes touching the sacrament pa 251. The figure of the Catholikes ib. infinite difference betvvene these tvvo 252.253.254.255 Freevvil pa. 509. G Grace hindereth nothing the merite of workes pag. 102.103 To say God is the author of synne is to say God is an Idol or a deuil pa 451. The protestants say so 451.453 454. S. Gregorie much praysed by the Protestantes pag. 158. much rayled at by the Protestantes 164. A booke written against him by Vergerius 165. S. Gregorie a priest without al reason made minister by M. Iewel 164. The Greeke Testament more aduantageable for the Catholikes then the common latin pa 283.284 Our common latin Testament more pure then the greeke now extant 361.362.363 The greeke Testament now differeth much from the old 363.364 Additions rashly made to the greeke 365.366.367 Parcels of importance left out of the greeke 367.368.369.370 H HEauen is of grace vvorkes pa. 104.105.106.107 544.545 Of mercy and iustice 105.106 107.108.109 Heauen must receaue Christ Act. 3. v 21 maketh nothing against Christs presence in the sacrament pa. 179.180.181.193 handled at large a pag. 170. vsque ad 175. S. Paule to the Hebrevves as much doubted of in the primitiue church as the epistle of S. Iames. pa. 38.39 The Apostles cited not scripture alwaies according to the hebrue pa. 287.288.289 Bookes of scripture written in hebrue lost 290. S. Hierom preferring the hebrue before the latin in his time iustifieth not the hebrue of our time pa. 297.337 More probable that the hebrue hath bene corrupted then the latin pa. 297.298.299.300 Corruptions in the hebrue pa. 302. in Isai against
vvorst of al other 381.382.383.384 he then most busily corrupteth scripture vvhen it is most to the dishonour of Christ 384.385 M. W. inuectiue against the late Catholike translation of the new Testament 444. it is mere histrionical 445.446.448 in condemning it he reproueth himself 447.454.455 the hypocrisie of his accusation 449.450 Notable bragging and lying 459.460.461 how weakely he iustifieth his inuectiue 462.463 he obiecteth only two faults 263.264 both false and if they were true of no importance 464.470.472.473 What they are in particular 464. his vnconscionable dealing 472.473 What is principally requisite in a Translator of scripture pa. 371.372.375 Translations more autentical then the original pa. 290.291.306 V Of the name Vniuersaliâ— See Primacie W Arguments that Good vvorkes are not the cause of saluation pa. 95. refuted at large 99.100.101 c. Good vvorkes in Christians are cause of saluation pa. 99.100 vsque ad 106. 418.421.422.423 as euil workes are cause of damnation 104.105.106.107 See Heauen Good vvorkes are in no respect necessary to saluation by the Protestants doctrine pa. 110.111.113 their argumentes prouing the same 112.113 The fathers doctrine touching good vvorkes set downe by M. W. pa. 115. the wickednes thereof 116.118.119 they are therefore condemned by Luther as verie Iewes 120.121.122 M.W. notable wrangling pa. 14.15 his manifold ouersights 97.98 he vnderstandeth not the Protestants doctrine of only faith 109. he commonly contradicteth him self 23.25.114.115.123.126.319 he proueth the English ministers to be Antichrists for sayng Communion 127.128 how fondly he answereth a place of S. Chrysost 204.206.211.212 his straunge assertion that only the hebrue text is scripture 286.287 Refuted 287.288.289 he calleth S. Austin a Sorbonist for his doctrine touching the value of good workes p. 543.545.546 and by like reason al the Apostles and Prophetes pag. 545.546 his arrogancie in condemning al doctors 495.496 et praef pag. 44.45 The summe of his answering D. Sanders consisteth partly in preferring him self before al other pref pa. 42. ad 51. partly in leauing out the substance of D.S. arguments ibid. pa. 75. vsque ad 81. Z Zuinglius the Apostle of the English church pref pa. 89.90 Zuinglians notable lyers pag. 525.526.555 and braggers 554. their maner of writing pref pa. 81.82 The faultes correct thus Pa. 4 linea 13. for charged reade charging Ibidem in many copies wanteth a marginal note Contra Campian pag. 11. Pa. 41 li. 26. Estaticus reade Ecstaticus Pa. 85. lin 6. Christ reade Christes Pa. 145. lin 18. forth reade forth Pa. 195. l. 17. argumenr reade argument Pa. 328. li. 8. for the two hebrew letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where also in some few examples the later hebrue word is diuided which should be ioyned Some other faultes there are of like qualitie especially of one letter for an other as s for f and r for t and in one place of some copies is vvhich for vvhich is al which considering the ordinarie difficulties of printing where straungers are the workers coÌ„positors correctors besides other extraordinarie mishaps I trust the Reader of his curtesie wil easely pardon Whom I request if by reading hereof he fynde ought for the encrease of his faith towardes Christ and his Church Catholike euen for loue of the same Christ and Church to help me with his prayer FINIS Contra Sand. pa. 5. in fine Ib. pa. 6. in principio M.W. knoweth not wel what that Antichrist is against whom he writeth Lucian de vera historia lib. 1. Cyclades Lucians historical verities the Protestants Euangelical verities are of like nature and probabilitie Much good time spent in reading or refuting heretical bookes 1. Tim. 6. Tertul. de praescript Heretikes are generally proude and ignoraÌ„t 2. Timoth. 6. v. 4. W. contra Sand. pag. 250. See after chap. 7. pag. 130.131 Whit. contra Camp pag. 154. Ibi pag. 153. Fulke con Mart. pag. 64 65. in sine Supra pa. 4. A strange proposition to say the church is Antichrist In the Protestants faith there is no cercertaintie In their writing and disputing there is no ground That the Protestantes haue no certaine fayth The Prince supreme head of the church The Prince not supreme head of the church A declaration of the iust c. Printed by special commaundement and licence â—no â—532 a pag. 411. Cart. in his second reply b 412. c 413. d 414. Ibi. 419 Communion booke in the forme of publike baptisme Baptisme remitteth sinnes Baptisme remitteth not sinnes Tower disputatioÌ„ the second day Priuate baptisme allowed Priuate baptisme disallowed M. W. contra Sander pag. 276.278 Ficta quaedam necessitas Great difference and coÌ„trarietie in the Communion bookes The sacrameÌ„t of confirmation admitted Refused T.C. pa. 174 apud Whitg pag. 785. Christ descended into hel Christ descended not into hel Carlile Caluin Instit aedit anno 1553. ca. 7 ¶ 28. et in postre aeditione l. 2. c 16. ¶ 9. Christs diuinitie graunted Christs diuinitie denyed M. Whit. contra Campian pag. 25.2.153.154 Sleid. Coâ—â— 17. an 1546. Rebellion against princes iustified and commended Ibidem lib. 8. an 1531. fol. 124. Ibid. lib. 22. an 1550. fol. 411. Sleid. li. 18 anno 1546 fol. 320. Beza ad D. Elizabeth Angl. Regi in praefat noui testament aedit 1565. Fox Actes and monumentes pa. 250.255.257 Ibi. pa. 251.252 a pa. 250. ad 260. Vbi supra pag. 250. Ibi. pag. 260 Gilbie Goodman c. WomeÌ„ may beare no rule ouer men in matters temporal The boâ—kes were pâ—inted at Geneua the yere 1558. yere 1559. Women may beare rule ouer men in al matters temporal and spiritual The Communion booke in the beginning before morning praier Copes and such like ornaments approued CoÌ„demned General chaunges and contrarieties in faith Foâ— actes monumeÌ„tes pag. 586. Real presence CommunioÌ„ in one kynd Mariage of priests vnlawful Vowes of chastitie Priuate masse Auricular confession These articles were according to the law of God in king Henries time Ibi. pag 587 The same articles were contrarie to the law of God in king Edwards time Fox vbi su in historia Cranmeri pag. 1473. A realme pitifully ordered where a chyld of 9 yeres old may by order of law ouerthrow al religion Chaunge vpoÌ„ chauÌ„ge D. Whitg Defensâ—a pa. 31. vsque ad 51. Ibi. pag. 178 Infinite difference betwene our English protestants and those of other nations Whit. Def. Tract 1. p. 74 A rule most assured Groundes or heads of disputation In the protestants writing or disputing there is no grouÌ„d Scripture denyed Whit. contra Camp pag. 17. Traditions of the Apostles denyed General Councels denyed T.C. pag. 16. apud D. Wh. Tract 2. p. 95 Of this see more chap. 3.5.7.17 after in the praeface Auncient doctors of the Catholike Church denyed Whit. coÌ„tra Sand. pa. 92. then we perceaue to be agreable to scripture Si vel intogrum patruÌ„ Senatum in nos commoueris D.
1. cal 4. v. 27. see before pag. 59 The end of M.W. doctrine touching Antichrist If the Pope of Rome be Antichrist there be many worse Antichristâ— in the world M. Iewels maner of answering D. Harding He leaueth out the best part of D. Hardings booke An vnconscionable way of answering Apud Sander pa. 764. Sander pa. 767. Ibid. pag. 770.771 â—â—g 774. Vnreasonable mangling corrupting and falsifying Apud Sander pa. 785. Apud Sand. pag. 789. Illyr Luther Luther To. 7. Defensio c. contra fanaticos sacramentariorum spiritus fo 381. The Protestants forbid the reading of scripture See after pa. 459. The heretikes alter their workes continually Of the name Protestants and Sacramentaries Ful. in the Answere to M. Martins preface pa. 17. Pag. 653. 1717. Those that professe the English religion are not Catholikes Brentius et Lutherani passim See before pa. 39. Nor Protestants Sleidan li. 6 fol. 102.101.109 Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 110. et 114. et lib. 8. fol. 128.131 Those of the English fayth are most properly called Zuinglians or Sacramentaries Apol. Ecclesiae Anglicanae d. â— Protestants Hussites Gospellers See before pa. 16. Actes and monumentes pa. 901.902 Ibid pa. 993. aeditionis postremae Sacramentaries Lutherans Zuinglians These names them selues vse besides a more general name vsed and confirmed by Act of Parlament see before pag 21. Sleid. lib. 8. fol. 128.131.133 et lib. 9. fol. 150. Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 107. et lib. 20. fol. 368. lib. 21. fol. 382.390 ibid. lib. 5. fol. 75.78 The proceding of the new gospel In prefat pag. 2. In respons ad episto Campiani prefa pag. 2. The Heretikes corrupt their ovvne vvryters Anno 1568. Colloq Alt. in respo ad excusa cor fol. 227. 2. RespoÌ„ ad Hipothe a fol. 284. ad fo 290. fo 353.355.441 442.443.526 Ibi. Saxoni ad respons de difcess fo 539.540 Vvestphalus in apologia contra caluÌ„ Cal. ca. 46. pag. 458. The vvorks of Luther corrupted by the Caluinistes in Geneua Detruncaeti Bull resp ad Cocle. ca. 3. Pag. 4. Ibid. Manifest contradiction Duraeus fol. 8. S. Iames epistle denyed by the ProtestaÌ„ts Pomeran ad Rom. ca. 8. In Annot. in â—o Test pag. vâ—i S. Iames epistle the Apocalips lefte out of the Protestants bibles Câ—â— 1. li. 2. c. 4. colum 54. Cent. 2. ca. 4. colum 71. Luther 10.5 in 1. Pc. ca. 1. Muscu in locis coÌ„mu ca. de lusti num 5. pag. 271. pag. 4. M.VV. notable vvranglinge pag. 3. Illirieus in praefa Iac. Had it not bene a goodly matter vvorthy the labour of such greate men in the Tovver disputations to discusse vvhether Luther called S. Iâ—mes Epistle stramineâ— made of stravve simply or oÌ„ly in comparison * Cont. Campi pag. 198. Pag. 4. Whit. cont Camp pag. 17 1â—.19 Cal. in argument ep Ia. The Heretikes sit in iudgemente vpon the scriptures allovv disallovve as they find moste fit for their sectes Whit. pag. 5. The reason why the english cleargie admitte some books of scripture and refuse others Aug. de doct chri li. 2. c. 8. A ca. 2. vers 4. vsque ad finem 7. ca. Pag. 5. Contr. CaÌ„p pag. 9. vide ibi pa. 10.12 M. VV. reasons make most against him selfe pag. 5. The summe of the Tower disputation touching the scriptures The fourth dayes conference Whit. pref pag. 4. 5. con Camp Pa. â—0 Ibi. A. 2. â— Ibi. 3. b. 8. The firste dayes conference in the Tower D. 1.2 Sundrye bookes of the scripture denied by the protestantes S. Lukes gospel doubted of Contr CaÌ„p pag. 9 exagitat The open way to deny al scripture pag. 24. Aug. de heresiâ— heresi 53. Epiph. here 75. Hiero. cont Vigilanti Ioâ—iniat The protestantes as in suÌ„dry other partes of their doctrine so in denying certaine books of scripture imitate the auncieÌ„t heretikes The 4. daies conference Epiph. here 42. Epiph. her 51. W. contra Cam. p. 28. Insti li. 1. ca. 7. ¶ 4 The protestants refusing the authoritie of the church can neuer geue reason how they know some bookes and not other to be canonical scripture Cont. Campian pag. 9. I. Tim. 3. v. 15. The protestats refusing the churche beleeue not the scriptures See after chap. 16. Rom. 10. ver 17. 1. Cor. 15. ver 11. Somewhat is the word of god besides scripture Aug. de doc Chris l. 2. ca. 8. Con. Cart. 4. ca. 47. Con. Laod. can 59. The epistle of S. Paule to the hebrewes as much doubted of in the primitiue Churche as that of S. Iames. and bâ—â—n as much as those books of the olde testament which the protestants reiect Hier. in Esai cap. 6. et 8. Latina coâ—suetudo IdeÌ„ in Hier. cap. 31. Hiero. in Catalogo Caius CoÌ„ei Laod. can 59. Pap. 24. M.VV. brag of coÌ„futing the catholike doctrine vayne and impossible Mat. 13. v. 14 Mat. 7. v. 6. Mat. 16. Luc. 22. Luther tom 2. contr Regem Angl. fol. 342. The coÌ„mon vaine spirit of euerie Secte of protestants Henricianae ecclesiae Pag. 6. Luthers extreme hatred against the Sacramentaries Zuinglians Cleâ—â—â—ius a Zuinglian made a booke intituled victoria venitatis â—utiâ—a papaâ—us Saxonici an 1561 Confess orthodox Eccles Tigâ—r tractat 3. â—o 108. Immaniter contra nos expuit Ibid. in prefat fol. 3. â— Lauatieâ— in historia Sacram. fol. 32. Luther reiâ—cteth the bible translated by the Zuinglians how much more ought catholiks to auoyded the same In coÌ„fessio Tigur vers supra fo 30. Confes Tigur tract 3. fol. 108. The Zuinglians condemne them selues in defending Luther M.W. distinctioÌ„ wheÌ„ Luthers iudgemeÌ„t is to be preferred before al the Church The folie of M.W. distinction Cone Chal. actio 1. Lirine cont haeres ca. 43. Mat. c. 4. v. 6. Ioan. c. 14. et 16. Ephes cap. 4. b. c. Esa ca. 59. v. 21. In this case the authoritie of the deuel as wel as of Luther is better theÌ„ all Fathers or al the angels of heauen Gal. 1. Ierem. 31. g. 33. d. Luthers iudgement with scripture against the Sacrametaries Luther to 7. A defence of the literal sense of our Sauiours wordes etc. against the fanatical sprites of the SacrameÌ„taries Ibi. fol. 383. The Sacramentaries enemies of the gospell by Luthers iudgmeÌ„t coÌ„firmed with scripture Euerie protestant soueraine iudge of scripture CouÌ„cels doctors old new See the 5. chap. in the beginning pa. 7 Mat. 10. v. 24. pa. 6. Who are truly priests Melchisedec did sacrifice The sacrifice of Melchisedec denied generally by the protestants though confessed by M. W. Gen. 14. Heb. c. 7. v. 6 Mus in loc com cap. de Miss papist pa. 492. Bib. printed anno 1579. Corruption of the scriptures Cal. in com in episto ad Heb. c. 7. v. 9 Ibid. Caluin reiecteth the auÌ„cieÌ„t fathers touchinge the sacrifice of Melchisedec Cal. in psal 110. Heb. 5. v. 11. 1. Cor. ca. 2. ver 5. ca. 3. ver 2. Hier. ep 126 ad Euagri Greg. Nazi Christ did sacrifice at his
1â—5 Damaso quaest 2. Many greate Grecians and HebraiciaÌ„s are wicked and detestable Christians First we must be sure of our fayth a Timoth. 3. vers 15. b Ephes 5. vers 25. c Gal. 4. v. 26. d 1. Pet. 3. vers 20.21 e Mat. 13. saepe f See before chap. 6. pag. 117. Act. 8. v. 20. Aug confes lib. 8. ca. 8. pag. 14.15 M. W. inuectiue against the late Catholike traÌ„slation of the new Testament Affected hypocrisie Before pag. 372.373.374.383 Our English translation folowing so precysely the old latin can not be so corrupt as M.W. imagineth Pag. 15. Mat. 27. Ioan. 11. v. 48. The end of the new gospel carnal libertie The true grace of this amplifying figure In his sermon printed fo 14. see the Discouerie pa. 178. A most absurd false amplification To say God is author of synne is to say that god is a deuil Caluin in instructio contra Libertinos ca. 14. Deum in diabolum transformaÌ„t English translatioÌ„s leade men to that opinion 1. Pet. 2. v. 8. Illyr glos in 1. Pet. c. 2. vers 8. Castalio defensio suae translatio pag 153.154.155 Beza in â— Pet. 2. v. 8. God createth men to sinne Beza Bible of the yere 1577. the yere 1579. The yere 1580. The yere 1579. Printed at Geneua the yere 1561. Cast defens suae translacions p. 155. Al these translations by verdicte of Caluin make god an idol a deuel M.W. in his last short sentence 6. refelleth gain sayeth whatsoeuer he hath sayd before The protestants more desyrous of nouelty of words then euer were any heretikes Oecolam Esa c. 1. v. 1. A far greater alteration and nouelty in articles of fayth The authors and writers of sundry bookes of scripture mocked scorned by the protestants a The tower disputatioÌ„s the 4 day b Zuingl to 1 art 57. fol. 100. c Idem to 3 in rhrenos Iere. fo 384. d Magdeb. see before pag 414. e Lutheranes and Zuinglianes see before chap 1. The new preaching a very mockery of scripture 1. Cor. 7. v. 9. see the annotations vpon that chap. Ephe. 5. v. 29 The protestants vse scripture for a veyle 〈◊〉 coueral filthynes 1. Tim. 5. v. 8 Pet. Mar de votis cael Iewel defence of the Apolog. part 6. ca. 8. ¶ 1. Incredible impudency in bragging and lying The particular faultes of our English translation A terrible accusation How weakely the same is iustified Vbi supra Marke the greuousnes of these 2. faultes Defendere is wel translated to reueng Tertullian contra Martionem li. 2 Ambros in Rom. ca. 12. Beda in Rom. 12. Iudith 1. v. 12. 2. v. 1. ca. 9. v. 2. The yere 1579. 1577. 1562. Ecclesiastici 30. v. 6. Of the yeres 1562.1577.1579 Ecclesiaâ—â—ici 48. v. 7. Great difference oft-times in the sense of a word as it is vsed by ecclesiastical writers prophane Iacob 3. v. 4. Rom. 4. v. 20. Mat. 11. v. 10.24 Rom. 12. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Defendentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mihi vindicta A great and monstruous fault to traÌ„slate a thing more truly The vnconscionable demeanure of our aduersaries Esa 9. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza Illyricus Castalio Parturiuâ—â— montea Iuuenal Pag. 21. The incredible lying falsifications vsed by the English writers of our time are a great motiue to the Catholike fayth Pag. 22. Mat. 2. v. 11. mat 3. v. 12. Act. 7. v. 58. The summe of M W accusation The protestants maner of disputing Tower disputation Tiburne disputation See M. Fox martirologe in King Henries time Luc. 12. v. 48 English writers The Catholike Church built vpon a rocke Christ and therefore in al times constant vnmoueable The English church buâ—lt vpon the fauour of Lords Ladies gentlemen and gentlewemen and therefore euer tottering and variable Fox act and monumentes pag. 512 Desyre of reuenge Ibid. p. 592. Couetousnes Fox acts monumeÌ„ts in Henri 8. pa. 1295. postremae aeditionis Fox actes monumeÌ„ts in the end of king Henryes lyfe pag. 682. Continual chaunge of the English fayth Luthers iudgement of the Sacramentarie religion Luther tom 7. defensio verborum coenae fol. 381. Trepida coÌ„scientia Faultes historical Note In the preface fol. b. ii In Mat. 2. v. 11. Psal 71. Esa 60. Chrysost Theophil Cic. de diuinat Plin. lib. 20. Esther 1.13.14 Tob. 2.15 Ambro. 1. offic ca. 12. That the wise men were kingâ— Tertullian contra Marcionem l. 3. Ciprian ser de Bapt. numer 1. Chrys hom 1. ex variis in Mat. locis Hier. in psa 71. Tertull. coÌ„tra Iudaeos probatio natiuit Christi Aug. ser 43. ad fatres in Ere Claudian in EpigraÌ„a Isidorus Remigius apud D. Tho. in catena in Mat. 2. Theophi in Mat. 2. Ansel in Mat. ca. 2. Gesnerus in PaÌ„dectis Vniuersa lib. vltimo tit 2. fol. 29. Zuing. to 4. in Mat. ca. 2. That the wise men were three August ser 1 de epipha Leo sermo 2.3.4.5.6.8 Their names 2. Tim. 3. v. 8. Mat. 3. v. 1. Monastical life Magd. cent 5. c. 6. pag. 711. Cent. 1. li. 1. cap. 10. Cythraeus in 3. ca. Mat. â—ucerus ibi Bee Canis de verbi Dei corruptelis lib. 5. c. 2.3.4 An easy kind of answering Act. 7. v. 58. Relikes miracles in the honor of Martyrs Hebrew 9. vers 4. Mat. 17. v. 11 Apoc. c. 11. vers 3. Aug. de ciuit li. 20. cap. 29. Intolerable boldnes and arrogancie Faultes in making arguments Whit. pa. 22 ArgumeÌ„t 1. Mat. 14. v. 26 Real presence Mat. 14. v. 29 Ioan. 3. v. 14 cal 4. d Scripture made ridiculous wheÌ„ it commeth to the handling of prophane men Peters primacy Luc. 10. v. 35. Maâ— 17. v. 2. Mat. 22. v. 30 Scripture falsified CommunioÌ„ booke in the collect of Michelmas day The Saints heare our prayers Mat. 27. v. 59 S. Hiero. in hunc locum To. 1. Conc. Mat. 28. v. 1. Pilgrimage to holy places In epist 17. Paul Eusâ— ad Marcel tom 1. Esa 11. Mar. 16. v. 12 Christ body vnder diuers formes Mar. 7. v. 34. Mat. 27. v. 46 Aug. de Ecclesiasticis dogma c. 31 Idem de nuptâ—is concupis eÌ„â—â—a lib. 2 ca. 18. 29. Exorcismes and other ceremonies in baptisme Luc. 1. v. 3. Pag. 3. In the 4. daies conference The protestants reason against the Machabees is as forcible against S. Lukes gospel More arguments of humane spirit in S. Paules epistles theÌ„ in the booke of Machabees Rom. 25. v. 15. 1. Cor. 2. v. 3 Ibi. c. 11. v. 1.17 Ib. c. 12. v. 11 Rom. 15. v. 30. 2. Cor. 6.11 Ephe. 6. 19. Colos 4.3 Thes 5.25 Sacred writers and holy CouÌ„cels The second booke of the Machabees 1. Mach. 2. 15. Luc. 2. v. 14. This is M. W. glose added to the text Free wil. Luc. 5. v. 3. The Catholike Church Peters ship Gregor in Iob. li. 17. c. 14. See S Amb. in Luc lib. 4 cap. 5. Aug. quaest euaÌ„g l. 2.