the scriptures wherein he doth not so much honour to them for placing them in the first roome as iniury and disgrace in ioyning with them anie other For as they are grounds of all true doctrine so are they onelie grounds and as in matter of faith arguments ought principallie to be drawne from them so such arguments onelie conclude necessarilie as euen your owne Thomas of Aquine doth directlie confesse Thom. 1. part 1. qu. artic 8. ad 2. Traditions of the Apostles are but deuised forged things which you make your second heade and therefore no staie for a man to settle his conscience vpon For tell me if you can which be the Apostles traditions how many and where they may be found If you cannot satisfie this demaunde as you cannot indeede how may you then make any reckoning of that whereof you haue no certaine knowledge how can you without falling builde your faith vpon fantasies such as they are The Apostles doctrine we haue in writing other traditions of the Apostles we receiue none for our beliefe Concerning the catholike Church which is your third head we reuerence and loue it as the spouse of Christ but we know that her duetie is to hearken onelie to the voice of Christ her husband and that she hath no authoritie to adde so much as one iotte to his worde or anie waies to dissent from it And further we know that your Romish synagogue is not that Catholike Church of Christ whereof we speake For generall councels and Doctors which are other twoe of your principall heades we esteeme and regarde them in their place we thanke God for them we reade allowe and commend them so far forth as they agree with Gods word If you thinke they neuer disagree from it your owne masters will correct you and tell you an other tale Are not these then goodly groundes and heads of faith that euen your selues are enforced oftentimes to disauow As for your supreme pastor of the Church we know him not by that name if you meane anie other but Iesus Christ alone For who so els taketh that honour and office vpon him to be the supreme pastor of the Church he is a theefe an Apostata an Antichrist make as great accompt of him as you list And where you saie we care for none of these groundes you speake vntruelie your selues indeede caring for none but onelie the last which is in stead of all the rest The determination of your supreme pastor that is your scripture your Apostolicall Tradition your Church your councels your Doctors your Faith your saluation your onelie staie in this world and in the world to come Scriptures you prooue we deny pag. 26. because we admitte not the authoritie of Tobias for inuocation and helpe of Angels nor of Ecclesiasticus for free will But you must first of all prooue which neuer shall you be hable to prooue that Tobias and Ecclesiasticus be canonicall scripture before you can inferre that we denie the scripture These bookes are not the holie Canonicall scriptures as we haue prooued against you by most inuincible and manifest demonstration by councels Fathers Doctors your owne Cardinals and schoolemen and we reioyce with all our harts that such popish doctrine hath no better scripture for proofe thereof then Apocryphall which because it hath a counterfayte stampe is no currant monie among the Lords people And for Traditions vnles you can approoue them by authoritie of Apostolicall scripture you haue our answere we regarde them nothing we know not from whence they came we will not giue ouer the certaine scriptures for such obscure and most vncertaine traditions For Councels true it is the argument holdeth not in this forme such a Councell decreed soe and therefore so must we beleeue Sett this principle downe for certaine and perpetuall in diuinitie and we shall haue strange beliefes enow yea scarsely shall we retaine any one true beliefe Two farâ—ous generall Councels haue beene held in Nice the first and the second In the first is condemned the Popes supremacie Can. â— in the second is established the Idolatrous worship of Images The first beliefe you will not alow the second we detest Let Councells therefore be esteemed as they deserue let their decrees be examined by Gods word and if they agree let them be receaued for that agreement if not let them be reiected for the contrarie The same iudgement haue we of auncient fathers pag. 27. Learned and Godlie men we graunt they were but yet men hauing their infirmities and imperfections Their learning their zeale their ages were noe priuiledge vnto them but that notwithstanding they might be deceiued in their writings and expositions of scripture And take you this Master Rainolds for a sure conclusion that in the sayings of those who are all of them subiect to errour there is no stable and steadie ground to build our faith vpon lest perhaps we build vpon error in steade of trueth vpon the sand and not vpon the rocke So that without tryall and examination no sentence of a father nor of all fathers may safelie be receiued Neither are we so addicted to the late writers pag. 28. as to beleeue whatsoeuer they haue saied we are no more partiall vnto them in this behalfe then we are vnto the auncient fathers our religion and faith hangeth not vpon the sayings of men be they olde or younge but onely vpon the canonicall scriptures of God And as for Augustine Ierome and Cyprian they are as much ours in the moste and weightiest controuersies as Luther Caluine or Melancthon And if they or any other be against vs so longe as scripture is for vs our cause is good and we will not be ashamed thereof And therefore moste false is it that you say our Diuinitie resteth vpon these fathers pag. 29. c. whome you so scornfullie compare with the olde fathers We vse not to alledge for proofe of any doctrine Thus saith Caluine Bucer or other but thus saith the Lord thus saith the Prophet thus saith the Apostle thus the Euangelist thus is it written in the scriptures thus we reade in some booke of the olde or new Testament Notwithstanding we vse also to reade the fathers both olde and new as much as your selues and oftentimes we rehearse their sentences and expositions not as proofes in doctrine of them selues but to stoppe your mouthes that crie so lowde in the eares of the simple that all the fathers are against vs it being moste true that they are notablie and generallie as I haue saide for vs You talke in this place as one that would saie something and telleth a long tale but in the end forgetteth of what he meant to speake Of all that you saie make your conclusion and then shall appeere how emptie and barren a declamor you are Now saith Master Rainolds if these serue not pag. 31. a man woulde thinke their martyrs testimonie should be irrefragable And thinke you
So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the scriptures of the new testament Such mad wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie Ambrose Catharine saith It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize scriptures Catharin in epist ad Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas reprobat or to reprooue scriptures to Canonize true Saints and to reiecte false meaning thereby that the holynes authoritie and estimation of scriptures procedeth frō the Pope Wherein yet he seemeth to haue foulie forgotten that canonicall scriptures are a greate deale more auncient then the Pope and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him But thus they vtter their minde that scripture is no otherwise the word of God then as it is approoued authorized and Canonized by the Pope which is in effect to bring the holy ghost vnder the censure approbation of a man and such a man as he I omit because I will not be tedious a number of such sayings moe wherein the holie scriptures of God are shamefully intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther they accuse him with out all measure continuallie for calling the epistle of Saint Iames a strawne epistle not absolutelie in it selfe but onelie in respect of S. Peter and Paules epistles Thus much now haue I thought good for satisfiing of the godlie to answere If you will not be satisfied you may write againe twise as much more whoe can let you this matter requireth no longer talke CHAP. 2. Of the canonicall Scriptures and English Cleargie FRom Saint Iames Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes refused by the Church of England which yet he saith were not further disprooued in times past then that epistle of Saint Iames whereupon he would haue his reader beleeue that in alowing some bookes and reiecting others we are ledde by opinion fansie not by learning or diuinitie Wherein Master Rainolds your selfe haue shewed that opinion not learning ruled you when you writ this For Saint Iames epistle was neuer disprooued by the wholl Church of God but onelie by some of the Church but those bookes that are refused by vs were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures had no greater credit then they are of with vs as shall appeere The reason therefore of our refusing them is not as you imagine because they containe some proofe of your Romish Religion which we cannot otherwise auoid but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie but because they doe bewray themselues of what stampe they are by most euident markes and therefore haue bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore sette in the same degree that they are left by vs. These Reasons you sawe comming against you and because you durst not openlie encounter with them you steale by an other way let them passe But I must call you back a litle though it be to your griefe and trouble and require of you a plaine and direct answere how those bookes of the olde testament which are commonly called Apocryphall written first in Greeke or some other forraine language can be Canonicall For all bookes of holie scripture in the olde Testament were written and deliuered to the Church by the holie prophets of God being approoued by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets Therefore Abraham answered the rich man Lue. 16.29 requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house They haue Moses and the Prophets whereby it is plaine that the wholl doctrine of the church then was contained in the bookes of Moses and the other Prophets 2. Pet. 1.19 And Peter saith we haue a more sure word of the Prophets meaning the scriptures of the olde testament And so the Apostle to the Hebrewes writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1.1 By which testimonies of Scripture it is prooued that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets But the writers of those Apocriphal books were no Prophets as may easily appeere For then they would not haue written their bookes in Greeke as is confessed most of these were nor in any other tongue then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time as Moses and the Prophets after him writers of the holie scriptures had done The Church was then amongst the Iewes and the Prophets were the messengers ministers of God in that Church and vnto it they deliuered dedicated their bookes Wherefore the Greeke tongue being not the tongue of Canaan nor of the Church then was not chosen by the Prophets to write and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord so that the verie tongue wherein these bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Testament And here I omitte particular arguments which might be brought against euery one of those bookes seuerallie whereby it may be prooued inuincibly that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures yet they had not the spirite of God for their father Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustines authoritie De doct Christ l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongst the Canonicall bookes of scripture and so you say did the Catholike Church of that age But that this is a moste manifest vntruth appeereth by S. Ierome Praesa in Pro. Solom whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth those bookes but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures So although Saint Augustine had thought them to haue bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets which are called properlie Canonicall yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in those dayes as Saint Ierome doth let vs vnderstand who liued in the Church of that age In what sense S. Augustine calleth these bookes canonicall Saint Augustine calleth them indeede Canonicall by a general and improper acception of that word because they are red in the Church and containe profitable and Godlie instruction but yet not so as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such bookes as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader Periculosis mendacus phantismatibus and bring preiudice to sound vnderstanding And then giueth a rule to preferre those bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches before them that some Churches receiue of those that are not receiued of all to preferre those that the moste of greatest authority do receiue wherby you may see the vanitie of that you said before that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall And
further if Saint Augustine himselfe had bene of your opinion he would not haue giuen this admonition to preferre some before some but would haue straitly and precisely charged that no difference should be made but all receiued alike being al of like authoritie As for Daniel albeit some parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue yet was it vnderstood of the Church being then in captiuitie vnder the Babylonians and that tongue is but a diuerse Dialect from the Hebrew and differeth littel from it My second reason Pag. 21. you say is of more force and if I prooue it you promise to be of my iudgement Let vs then set downe the reason first and see the proofes afterward I sayd betwene thosde bookes Apocryphes of the old Testament and Saint Iames epistle there was this difference that they were refused of the wholl Church and so was not Saint Iames wherfore we had reason to reiecte them and not this By the wholl Church I meant not onely the primitiue Church of Christians as you supposed but the Church of the Iewes before Christ which neuer allowed those bookes for Canonicall as your selues confesse which is an inuincible argument against them For had they bene Canonical that Church would not nor ought not to haue reiected them and other Church there was none then to allowe them So by your iudgement it must be thought that diuerse bookes of Canonicall scripture were neuer receiued for many yeares in any Church which howe absurde it is euery man seeth The Apostle writeth that vnto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 whereby is meant his word But these bookes the Iewes neuer receiued and therefore they are of another sorte then those that containe the oracles of God And that the Iewes did not amisse in reiecting them it may be vnderstoode in that they were neuer reprooued by Christ or his Apostles for the same Their false expositions of scripture are often tymes noted and their errours confuted but they are neuer found fault with for refusing these bookes of scripture whereof if they had bene guilty they should not haue escaped reprehension This argument you deale not with but expound my words of the primitiue Church whereas I spake specially of the Church before Christ For though the Catholike Church neuer thought these bookes to be Canonicall as that word is properlie taken yet it vsed in some places to read them for instruction of manners Hieron praef in Solom not for confirmation of faith as S. Ierome teacheth but the olde Church of the Iewes neuer vouchsafed them so much honour as to read them publikelie And that the Catholike Church receiued not these bookes for Canonicall though it read them you haue alreadie heard the witnes of Saint Ierome who also in another place writing expressely of the Canonicall bookes Hieron in prologo Galeats excludeth these out of the Canon and calleth them Apochryphall Hereunto might I adde many testimonies of Councels and writers both olde and newe wherein appeareth what iudgement the Catholike Church had of these bookes Gregory the great whoe in your opinion was the head of the Catholike Church being Bishop of Rome Writers old and new esteeme those bookes for Apocryphall and therefore one that by likelyhood should not be ignorant of the Churches iudgement calleth the bookes of Macchabees not Canonicall yet set forth to the edification of the Church Greg. in Iob. li. 19. cap. 16. Thus for 600. yeares after Christ you see these bookes were not esteemed in the catholike Church for Canonicall which also must be thought of the rest whereof we speake seeing there is one and the same iudgement of thē all And that this iudgement hath euer since continually remayned in the Church is prooued by a c. 49. in Graeco Veronensi Damascene by b De sacram in prol li. 1. cap. 7. Hugo S. victoris by c in Leu. li. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus by d in prol in li. Apocryp Lyrane by e in prol Iosu Hugo Cardinalis and many moe whoe playnly doe affirme those bookes in the olde Testament that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphall to be so and not as you would haue them taken canonicall Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus a man of your owne side though not so absurd corrupt in iudgement as moste of you in his Hebrew Bible interlined is not affrayd thus to write of the same bookes and that not in a corner but in the very forefront and principal leafe of the booke There are added sayth he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke Bibilia Montani 1584. which the catholike Church following the canon of the Hebrews reckneth among the Apochryphall Thus it is euident that these bookes haue beene and are refused by the catholike Church and that our Church iudgeing them Apochrypall consenteth with the iudgement of the catholike Church and yours in receiuing them for canonicall haue not herein a catholike iudgement Now for Saint Iames epistle where you demaund how it may appeere that it was not refused by the wholl Church I would know whether you will say it was indeed refused by the wholl Church or no if you will so say then you shall as much discredite the authoritie thereof S. Iames epistle was neuer reiected by the wholl Church but by some particuler Churches onely as euer Luther or anie Protestant hath done For as the wholl Church neuer receiued anie booke for canonical but that which was truelie Canonicall so the wholl Church hath neuer refused any as Apocryphall but such as were indeed Apocryphall If then the wholl Church of Christ hath refused Saint Iames Epistle it will necessarilie follow that S. Iames Epistle is not canonicall But that the wholl Church euer refused it is vntrue as maybe prooued by the testimonies of writers and Histories of the Church Euse l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius that was the greatest aduersarie of it and did most sharplie censure it yet in the same place confesseth that both that and the rest were receiued and published in moste Churches Wherfore when you saie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for this part you must credit me vpon my word herein you bewray either great ignorance or desire to quarrell The difference then which I put betweene the Apocryphall bookes of the olde testament and these bookes of the newe that they were reiected by the Church wholie these not so is fullie prooued whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them then these and was therein led by learning knowledge not by fansie and opinion as you saie What learning or what diuinitie is your Church led by first to esteem of these alike then to alowe for Canonicall such bookes as you confesse and can not denie to haue beene refused by the wholl Church Where you say my reasons make moste against my selfe pag. 23. I
know not how I could haue written more plainelie more consonantlie to my selfe then I haue done But some are so froward that though it be beaten into them with hammer yet they will not seeme to vnderstand I saie Luther followed the iudgement of the auncient Church in refusing Saint Iames Epistle what maketh this against my selfe Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it Doth not Eusebius prooue it when he saith it was receiued in moste Churches Then it followeth not in al Churches And would Eusebius haue called it a Bastard if some Churches had not so accounted of it But what if some refused it doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did so you maie not thinke M. Rainolds to cast vpon vs such a miste but that we shal be hable to espie your walking along Saint Iames epistle was neuer refused of all Churches generally it was refused onelie by some Luther in refusing it agreed with the auncient Churches not with all but some as many as refused it But the greater number of Churches receiued it as Eusebius witnesseth and our Church is led by Gods spirit and true learning to follow them But for the Apochryphall bookes of the olde Testament I haue prooued sufficiently and can further declare if neede require that both the greatest part of the Church and the wholl Church hath reprooued them As for that Ierome sayth The Church readeth them it maketh litle for their credit S. Ierome a great enemy to those apocryphal bookes seeing he addeth immediatly it was to edifie the people not to confirme the authoritie ef Ecclesiasticall doctrine and that though the Church read them yet it receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures wherein he hath plainely cast them downe from that height of authoritie and maiestie whereunto you would so faine lift them vp The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose Pag. 25. Their scope was to shew that in the primitiue Church not onely some particuler persons but wholl congregations haue doubted of many bookes of Scripture and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignite of true Churches of Christ and therefore that Luther doubting or denying some of them cannot for that cause iustelie in any indifferent iudgement be condemned seeing whatsoeuer they obiect against Luther in this behalfe must light vpon the auncient Churches fathers that haue thought herein as Luther did Wherefore your conclusion that you set downe in the end of this your idle wandring talke is onelie deuised of your selfe and not maintained by vs. For you father vpon vs that we thinke we may refuse all such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of pag. 28. which is as farre from our thinking as heauen is from earth and if any man haue euer vttered such a thing as I thinke none hath it is his owne priuat conceite not the approoued and constant iudgement of our Church The bookes in the olde Testament that we refuse besides that they carie in their foreheades euident notes of Apochryphall writings haue not onelie bene doubted of but clean cast awaie by the Church of God as hath bene prooued all the bookes in the newe Testament doe we whollie admit as canonical not refusing any parcell or word thereof because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God and see no reason to mooue vs otherwise For though they haue beene doubted of in former times yet it was vpon no certaine ground and by fewe in comparison of those that receiued them vndoubtedlie Pag. 29. Thus in a word the necke is broken of al your notes that follow where in you labour to saie as litle in manie words as possiblie maie be sayd That we rente from the bodie of the Scriptures in the old Testament Toby Iudith Hester Baruch Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Maccabees the praier of Manasses the song of the three children the storie of Bell herein we doe the canonical Scriptures no iniurie deuiding from them such bookes as are not of that absolute authoritie that they which are in truth canonical maie remaine intire and wholl together no more then the shepheard doth iniurie to the sheepe in sorting the goates and other cattel from them But which of our brethren are they that ioyne to these the two bookes of Cronicles and the song of Salomon If you can name any such in these daies it will soone appeare they are not brethren of ours You will not I suppose charge vs therewith and yet perhaps you will haue men suspect vs as guiltie thereof But your boldnesse is intolerable that knowing both the common consent and practize of our Church do notwithstanding both labour to caste wrong fullie vppon vs some suspicion for refusing these and furthermore also plainlie and most falsllie avouch that we denie sundrie bookes of the new Testament setting downe in a rowe Saint Lukes Gospell M. Rainold accufeth vs for denying some Canonical books of the olde Testament diuers of the new which all the world knoweth to be a great slaunder the epistle to the Hebrews the epistle of Saint Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Saint Iobn Saint Iude the Apocalyps a parte of Saint Iohns Gospell What ment you Master Rainold thus to say and thus impudentlie to lie Are you gone to Rheames and haue you left all conscience behinde you Care you not to publish in printe to the world so great so manie so manifest vntrueths before you vse to make your sacrifice at Masse do you not vse to confesse your lies as sins and yet will you print your lies without repentance Of these our Church denieth nor one doubteth not of one If you meane some Protestants in Germanie whatsoeuer they thinke of Saint Iames S. Iude the second of Saint Peter the second and third of S. Iohn yet the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn they do receiue as canonicall Saint Lukes gospell came neuer yet in doubt or question amongst vs and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowle vntrueth If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said that the Laodicean Councel omitteth S. Lukes gospel it is too friuolous seeing that was a slippe of memorie or ouersight in him And though the Councel had so done as it hath not yet how followeth it that we therefore doe so My distinction of the wholl Church some Churhes is as cleare as the day it is to be obserued that whereas in it resteth the summe of this your second Chapter and you are desirous to haue it remooued yet you bring nothing once to stirre it That S. Iames hath bene douted of in such sorte as Iudith Macchabees the counterfaite Hester for the right Hester we embrace is prooued alreadie false and that our owne doctours refuse it is an other vntrueth For were it as you saie of that conference yet is it but one single mans sentence and that by waie of arguing
your other argument our of Luke 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many sinnes were remitted it hath bene answered so fullie and truelie by sundry learned writers that I might whollie passe it ouer A chieâ—â— place of the papistes for merite of workes answere and expounded Onelie this in briefe I saie to stoppe your rayling mouth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because is often times vsed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore that so in this place it must be of necessitie expounded may appeere by an inuincible reason which your selues cannot denie For that woman being so deeplie drowned in deadly sinne how could her loue deserue the grace of God and remission of her sins doth your scholasticall Theologie maintaine that a sinnefull creature lying in state of condemnation can by loue merit pardon of his sins Tel vs plainly if this be your doctrine your religion your diuinity If then this be moste false and impossible confesse that the loue of that sinnfull and miserable woman was not be cause of forgiuenes of her sinnes but the effecte following and not going before the same This doctrine is true and Catholike the contrarie wicked and hereticall and therefore no cause had you to raile so mightely at Beza and vs for translating expounding this word as we do as the proportion of faith circumstance of the place moste vndoubtedlie and necessarilie requireth For our sauiour Christ sheweth the cause of hir so great loue to be the forgiuenes of the great and manie sinnes They to whome litle is forgiuen loue a litle they to whome much is forgiuen loue much She had much forgiuen therefore she loued much And this the Fathers also acknowledge to be the true and naturall seuse of the place although you abuse their names to the contrarie S. Gregorie as he is also by Thomas alledged Grâ—g 〈◊〉 83. â—â— Luangell writeth thus The debt being forgiuen to both the Pharisie is demaunded who should more loue him that forgaue the debt You see that Gregorie expoundeth this of the loue that followed the forgiuenes of the dâ—bt And so likewise Saint Ambrose vpon this place Ambros is Luc. 7. Because saith he there is nothing which we can worthelie render vnto God woe be vnto me if I loue not I dare saie Peter rendered not and therefore he loued more c. Let vs therefore render loue for debt charitie for reward thankes for the prise of his bloode Thus Saint Ambrose planlie she weth that this loue in that woman did spring from remission of her sinnes Câ—nus l. 12. c. 12. as it must in vs also proceed from the same fountaine I could also put you in minde what Canus a schooleman of yours hath written of this place cleane ouerthrowing your opinion as if he had of purpose deuised a shift for you Notwithstanding that the fathers sometime write our sinnes are washed a waie by teares of repentaunce I graunte wherebie they meane no other thing but that by our earnest sorowe and repentance we receiue a sure testimonie to our soules of the remission of our sinnes Your discourse about Musculus exposition I pretermit with al your monstrous reproches blaspemies of Lucianical onely faith c. except the deuil him selfe stood by them and suggested to them such construction c. fitter for you to vtter then me to rehearse or answere pag. 428. This wholl matter againe M.R. laieth out in particular distinctions wherunto hath bene answered enough alreadle and more then nedd but onelie in respect of that intolerable and outragious Importunity which this cauiller hath vsed If this be an vnlawfull shift in expounding of scripture to trie and correct the translation according to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines then haue all the auncient fathers of the Church exercized continuallie wicked shifts whoe both appeall them selues to the authenticall fountaines and counsell all others to doe the same far otherwise then your fathers of Treâ— haue done or will suffer others to doe whotie their faith wholly to a bare translation and giue no creditt to the Canonicall fountaines wherin they haue not only vse de damnable and miserable shift but at once haue rased out the wholl scriptures from beginning toending Grat. dist 9. vt veter S. Augustine saith the bookes of the olde Testament must be examined by the Hebrew and the new by the Greeke veritie Saint Ambrose saith Ambrosade incarn cap. 8. The authoritie of the Greeke bookes of the new Testament is greater S. Ierome is euery where of the same minde In the new Testament saith he if there arise anie question among the Latines Hier. ad sonn Fret and there be difference in the copies we repaire to the fountaines of the Greeke tongue wherein the new Testament was written and so likewise in the olde In his preface vpon the fiue bokes of Moses he esteemeth it an absurde and impossible thing that the latine copies should be purer then the Greeke and the Greeke then the Hebrew Againe in a nother place he saith if trueth is to be sought in a Euang. ad Damas whie reiurne we not to the Greeke orignal speaking of the new Testament And such sayings hath he manie alwaies preferring the Hebrew Greeke before al translations in the world But all this by M.R. simple verdite was but a shift in him and al the auncient learned godlie fathers For it is the high waie to Atheisme in his opinion to do as they did and as they haue also taught vs to doe Zuinglius exposition of loue for faith pag. 429. I will not maintaine It may seeme more curious then necessarie In the text is no difficultie if the simplicitie of truth maie be receiued As for Tertullians complaint of certaine heretickes that either refused or mangled or corrupted the scriptures it toucheth vs no whit at al who acknoweledge the wholl bodie of scriptures and are so far of from wilfull corruption thereof that of purpose we would not alter one letter in the Bible to winne the wholl worlde Therefore we litle regard your furious and senseles railing against vs where with you haue stuffed all partes of your booke that neuer was scorpion fuller of poison then it is of venemous and stinging reproches Leauing the Greek you returne againe to the Hebrew Pag. 431. against which you haue deuised pretie reasons to prooue there is no holde in it against contentious heretikes The blasphemie of which assertion M. Rain saith that in the Hebrew text of scripture there is no holde I dout not euerie reasonable man at the first will espie and abhorre For seeing it pleased the Lord of all tongues of men vnder heauen to chuse that tongue wherein to write his word oracles that his Church might haue a most perfecte and certaine rule of religion shall this Papist come and controll the wisdome of God for so doing and say that of the Hebrew litle holde can be
and refresheth a man in his age I wil not vrge Father Ierome for his vnreuerent wordes but sure I am he hath deserued more reproofe for the same then Luther hath done for any thing euer vttered by him against S. Iames Epistle By these examples you may learne not to be so rash in your iudgement and hasty in your conclusions as you shew your felfe to be in the very beginning that because Luther denied Saint Iames epistle to be Canonical following the ensample of others hence doe gather not onely that he but we also although herein disagreeing from him and denying no one booke of Canonicall scripture neyther of the old nor new testament doe raze the foundation of faith and leaue no ground for Christians to stand vpon We leue such ground and thereupon do build our faith as ye shall neuer be hable to shake with all the force ye haue Verely your Pope and ye all that hang vpon him cannot well stand on this ground because it is too narrowe and slippery for you and therefore ye seeke larger roome in the Fathers Councells Traditions whereof you speak The grounds of Popish faith These are in deed fit groundes for your Church to be founded vpon the corruptions of Fathers the decrees of men superstitious inuentions forged traditions whereunto if you did not more leane and somewhat staye your selfes then to the bookes of holy scriptures your Church your Pope your Cardinals your monkes your friars your selues should surely lie in dust shortly But now to come to Luther whome still you chardge and me also about Saint Iames epistle I could vse as many words against you if the cause required as you haue against me handle the matter by poynts as you doe but what end or vse should there be of such kinde of writing or what profitt could arise thereby to the Church of Christ Had you clerely gayned al that for which you contend yet had you not prooued any thing at all against our Church or fayth nor yet against me but onely that Luthers writings haue beene changed and altered which because you haue so paynfully euicted I praie you take it vnto you and vse it moste to your aduantage Howbeit for all your needles and vnthriftie labour spent herein yet doth Campian still remayne chardged with that vntrueth whereof you would so fayne acquit him which you may sone perceiue if you call to remembrance what Campian in his booke obiected to Luther concerning this epistle of Saint Iames namely that he called it contentious swelling Campian Rat. 1. drye strawen and thought it not worthy an Apostolike spirite All this doth Campian auouch Luther to haue written of Saint Iames epistle Now yf Luther haue in deede thus written then haue I vniustly accused Campian of vntrueth yf otherwise then hath Campian slaundered Luther fowly To know the trueth herein I vsed all conuenient diligence in examining all the copies both Dutche and Latine that I could get and when I found in them noe such wordes but rather the cleane contrary I was perswaded as I had good cause that all this was but a forged matter and therefore sayd it was vntrue Afterwards it fell out that I light vppon an old Dutch Testament of Luthers translation with his prefaces wherein I found something like in one poynt to that which Campian had obiected the which when I had read I dissembled not but confessed it in my answere to Gregory Martin And in that preface Luther in deede writeth that Saint Iames epistle is not so worthy as are the epistles of Saint Peter and Paul but in respect of them is a strawen epistle His censure I mislike and so himselfe I thinke afterwards seeing those words in latter editions are left out Yet I trust euery indifferent reader will graunt that there is ods betweene this that Luther writeth indede and that which Campian saith he writ For it is one thing to speake simply and another thing to speake in comparison Campian sayth Luther calleth Sainte Iames Epistle strawne Luther sayth That it is in comparison of Saint Peters and Saint Pauls epistles strawne If you can by all your wisdome prooue these to be all one and will farther busie your selfe about trifles I am content to giue you the reading but I will not vouchsafe to answere any more such strawen or rather wodden replies And sure Master Rainoldes if you can write nothing to purpose and yet will needs be writing something it were better for you to sit downe and picke strawes then so to trouble your selfe and others wherein you shall purchase nothing els but commendation of a strawne writer and your booke shal be iudged more worthy to be burnt then to be answered But seeing you haue taken in hand to prosecute this matter so largelie M. Rainolds helpeth not where greatest neede is of his helpe why doe you faile in that thing wherein most of all we need your hand and helpe For this that you bring concerning strawne hath already beene confessed somuch as is true your parte had beene now farther to haue shewed that Luther likewse called the same epistle contentious swollen drie not worthie an Apostolicall spirit as he is accused by Campian in the same place But for proofe hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confesse that Campian layd more to Luthers charge concerning this Epistle then was true so that if in one poore word you haue a little auouched the credite of your Iesuite for whome you fight yet in three or foure other you haue condemned him which you slylie passe ouer notwithstanding as though Campian had neuer spoken so or you had nothing to do therwith Indeed I graunt it maketh smale matter what Campian hath lyed of Luther but you that take vppon you to defend him may not thinke you haue performed your duty if of much that he hath said you be able to iustify his saying in one litle point in three points haue failed Wherefore either cease to quarell still about this one word or shew your proofes for the rest also or acknowledge your lewd and miserable wrangling as in deed you must howsoeuer the matter standeth concerning Luther in this behalfe For what if Luther had plainly and constantly affirmed of Saint Iames Epistle as much as Campian hath obiected though vntrulie Is this a cause sufficient why you should make all these outcryes generally against all Protestants why then may not we by like reason complayne of all Papists for that which Cardinall Caietane hath written both of other bookes of holie scripture and namelie of this same Epistle whereof we speake was not Caietane a piller of your Church a peere of the court of Roome the Popes Legate in Germanie against Luther Doth not this famous Cardinall of Roome set downe in playne wordes that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth gather insufficient arguments to prooue Christ to be the sonne of God that the second and
third of Iohn are not Canonicall scripture Cardinal Caietane denieth sunday bookes and partes of Canonical Scripture in the new Testament where fore Catharinus hath written against him that the Epist of Iude is Apocryphall that the last Chap. of S. Marke is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. Iohn is not authentical namely of S. Iames Ep. that the salutation is prophane hauing nothing of God nor of Iesus Christ But what speake I of Caietane disalowing certaine bookes and parcells of diuine scripture whereas Hosius another Cardinal and one chiefe founder of all your late sophistications hath written most dishonorably and vilely of the wholl scripture for thus he sayth Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis est verbum Dei quomodo profertur ab haereticis Hofius contra Brent lib. 4. est verbum diaboli that is The scripture as it is brought forth by the Catholikes is the word of god as it is brought forth by the Heretikes is the word of the deuil So that by this notable Cardinals iudgement if a Protestant that is in their language and meaning an heretick shall alledge for proofe of Christes eternall diuinitie the beginning of the Gospel written by Saint Iohn this scripture shall now become of Gods word as it is and alwaies shal be the word of the deuil because it is vsed by such as they account and call heretikes O blasphemous hand and tongue And can you prooue this Maister Rainolds can the word of God be made the word of Sathan It will not stand with your honestie to maintaine it Gods word by whome-soeuer it be vttered though by the deuill him-selfe is not the worde of the deuill God is immutable so is his worde Then hath Hosius blasphemed in calling Gods word the deuills word which you ought to consider who thinke you haue found somewhat against the Protestants when you shewe what Luther hath written in some disgrace of Saint Iames Epistle I can further put you in remembrance what others of your syde haue taught and maintained to the great slaunder and derogation of the Scriptures and that not in one worde or two but in earnest and long discourses Pighius Hierarch li. 1. Cap. 2. What doth Pighius labour to perswade in one whole Chapter often in other places by occasion but onlie that the Scriptures haue al their credit authoritie from the Church as though they had not any of them selues from the lord by whose spirit they were written For thus he sayth All authoritie of Scripture among vs dependeth necessarily vpon the authoritie of the Church Neque enim aliter cis credere possemus nisi quia testimoniumillis perhibenti Ecclesiç credimus for we could not otherwise beleeue them but because we beleeue the Church giuing testimonie vnto them And againe The primitiue Church hath made certaine proofe vnto vs that the writings of all the Euangelists are of canonicall trueth and not the Euangelists themselues that were the writers And against SS Marke and Luke he disputeth at large and boldly auoucheth that they were not meete witnesses of the trueth of those gospells which they writ Marcum Lucam nonsuisse testes libneos veritatis scriptorum à se Euangeliorum Ecclesie therefore euen while they liued that credit was not giuen to their Gospels for them-selues no not of those that certainly knew they were written by them yea and farther also had their verie principall copies written with their ownehands but for the Apostolike Church Yea this presumptuos and arrogant spirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and sayth that the Gospells were written by the Euangelists not to the end that those wrytings should beare rule ouer our faith and religion Non quidem vt scripta illa praeessent fidei religionique nostrae sed subessent potiùs Hoc Euangeli um inquit vnicum solumque designans Eu◠gelium esse nō que nos Matthaei Marci Lucae Ioannis que dicimus Euangelia quat uor Hier. li. 3. ca. 3. Ceusur Colonien pag. 112. Cusan epist 2. 7. but rather be subiect thereunto And yet a litle more blasphemouslie That they are not the true Gospell which Christ ascending into heauen commanded his Apostles to preach to euery creature What should I rehearse his often reprochfull comparisons of scripture to a nose of wax and a rule of lead which may easelie be turned bowed and applied euerie way at our pleasure which also the Censure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner And to the same effect hath Cardinall Cusane long before set downe that the Scriptures must be expounded diuersly and framed to the time and practise of the Church so that one time they are to be vnderstood and interpreted one waie and an other time an other way Which is more vnreasonable and absurd by many degrees then if one should prescribe that the Ladie must conforme hir selfe to the fashion and manners of hir handmaide William Lindane hath bene and still is a stout Champion for the Pope Lindan Pan. Lib. 1. c. 17. in whose defence he hath vttered many bolde blasphemies against the Scriptures as namelie that the Euangelists tooke in hand to write the Gospels Non vt aliquam totius Euangelij methodum insormarent non vt Christianae fisdei summam consor berent Lib. 3. cap. 1. not to the intent to set downe any forme of the wholl Gospell or to write the sume of Christian faith And that the authoritie of the word not written is greater then of the word written which question he saieth maie easilie be determined howsoeuer to some it seemeth full of difficultie and perplexitie Lib. 3. cap. 6. De to to in vniuersum sacrae scripturae corpore accipiendum and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paules epistles that in them are somethings hard to be vnderstoode the same must be taken and ment generallie of the wholl bodie of the Scriptures soe that according to this mans doctrine there is not in all the scriptures one easie sentence and S. Peter was ouerseene to saie that but somethings in the epistles of Saint Paule were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he should rather haue said that all things were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. cap. 22. Furthermore that it is extreame madnes to thinke the wholl entire bodie of Euangelicall doctrine is to be fetched out of those sole Apostolike letters written with incke Dementissimae insaniae Ex pusillo noui testanmenti libello and that litle small booke of the new testament Thus scornefullie wirteth this proud Papist of the diuine scriptures and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable similitude that it is as greate a want of wit to esteeme iudge that al Euangelical doctrine is comprehended in the bookes of the newe Testament as if one should saie that the wholl frame of the world is contained in some one sensible creature
acknowledge the bookes them-selues to be canonicall wherfore in that you saie we finde not this word in the scriptures vnles you thinke no word is found in them but such as is set downe in expresse tearmes you are abused For this word is found in them by necessarie collection so be not your vaine vnwritten Traditions and therfore are neither parte nor parcell of Gods diuine word But here is by the waie to be noted how this man seeking to disprooue my comparison of the sunne pag. 36. hath suddenlie ouerthrowen the principall staie of their religion which is the visiblenes of the Church That which is knowen by sense saith he is no article of faith for these two are directly opposite Then the Church is not knowne by sense and so visiblenes is not a marke of the Church For if it be then is it not an article of faith to beleeue the Church Thus sometime you can reason well but then it is against your selfe The similitude was brought not to match our beliefe of scripture with knowledge of the sunne that as we know the one by sense so the other but that we haue certaine and vndoubted beliefe of the canonicall scriptures by themselues as we know the sunne by it selfe Your beliefe in deede of the bookes of scripture is naturall and to vse your owne example such as when you beleeue Tusculans Questions to be written by Tullie For as you are ledde thus to beleeue of this booke because it hath bene so accounted in all times by constant tradition euer since so likewise you haue no better reason to discerne the canonicall scriptures from other bookes but onely this common receiued opinion of the Church which you call Tradition We haue this as well as you and we haue also an other better and surer then this which you haue not yea which you blasphemously deride the testimony of the spirit wherby the authoritie of the scriptures is sealed in our harts and we are throughly induced to receiue them as the most blessed Testament and trueth of God For example that there is a God who created heauen and earth both the Scriptures teache and the creatures them-selues confirme soe as no man ought to stand in doubt thereof Yet notwithstanding this persuasion cannot be faithfullie setled and rooted in mans hearte vnlesse it be approoued and as it were sealed vnto vs by the holie Ghost without the confirmation whereof great doubtfulnes and distrust will arise in our mindes continuallie through the greate corruptiō of our nature Euen so that these scriptures are in trueth the verie word of God not onelie them selues doe prooue by their subiecte matter argument but also the testimony iudgement of the Church which euer so esteemed them may inuinciblie argue the same And yet for all this that we faithfullie receiue them and submit our selues vnto them as to the word of God without wandring or suspicion Gods holie spirit must inwardlie perswade our heartes that this indeede is his word and therefore of vs by all meanes to be imbraced and beleeued Thus it appeereth how false it is that you haue noted in your margent that the Protestants refusing the Church beleeued not the scriptures We refuse not the Church but we knowe the Scriptures of God haue greater credit and assurance then the onelie approbation of the Church I haue allreadie answered whatsoeuer you bring out of Augustine the Councel of Carthage or any other pag. 38.39 both in what sense those bookes of the olde Testament are called canonicall by them alsoe how the other of the new Testament were refused or receiued in times past You shall neuer be able to prooue that you set down in your margent wherein the summe of your wholl speach is briefly comprised that S. Iames epistle and the epistle to the Hebrews haue beene as much doubted of as the bookes of the olde Apochryphall Testament which the Protestans reiect The moste you can alledge is that some Churches haue doubted of those epistles but I haue before shewed that the wholl Church reiected these of the olde Testament This was mine answere to M. Martines demaunde this is mine answere still which you cannot with all your endeuour take away Something you write for a colour and fashion but you come alwaies behinde with your reckning It offendeth you that I saide we haue seene we haue confuted we haue troden vnder foote all the arguments of the Papistes and whatsoeuer they could saie Vnlesse you haue some new haruest growing which yet hath not bene reaped I might truely saie as I saide for you haue vttered all your store such as it was and we haue seene and confuted it long agoe and that by the written word of god against which no tradition no religion though neuer so auncient so vniuersall so glorious may preiudice anie thing What reasons moued you to departe from vs and become a feedes-man of the Pope I leaue to the Lord and your owne conscience for any thing that I could euer see and I haue laboured to see the trueth and what could be saide against it by the best of your side I doe with al my heart reioyce in the cause which we maintaine against you and I thinke it to be the iustest and honorablest defense that euer was vndertaken What you haue learned since you went and how substantiallie you confute my bragge as you call it shall hereafter further appeare as it hath in part alreadie done CHAP. 3. Of Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers HEre againe is repeated an other quarrel about Luther to no purpose in the world but onely to discredite him a litle with the simple sorte For our aduersaries are so wasted and spent for good reasons that whatsoeuer they light vpon though neuer so vnfit to frame good arguments of they handle it with great earnestnes like seelie fletchers that hauing no store of steles left in theire shoppe are saine to make their blots of euerie crooked sticke What maketh it againest the trueth of our reliligion if Luther preferred his owne iudgement before the fathers is our doctrine therefore false and yours true either in wholl or in parte Others desire to reape great profit of a litle labour but you are content to take a great deale of paine for no commoditie at al. I would not herin vouchsafe you an answere but that I haue respect to the readers weaknesse whoe by such slaunders may be abused Your title sheweth plainlie there is in this Chapter no truth to be looked for at your hands pag. 42. you say Luther preferred his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers and Doctors wherein you would haue men thinke he was vnmeasurablie arrogant and wilfull But Luthers spirit was farre from this insolent and immoderate presumption as maie by his owne wordes appeare which you haue noted For he saith not that he more setteth by his owne priuate iudgement then he doth by al the
not according to the Hebrew but according to the Septuagints First Master Rainolds your comparison is not equall What are ye to Christ to his Euangelists and Apostles will you be bolde to take as much vppon you as they might herein doubtles you haue not so wiselie be thought your selfe Then shew if you can a place alledged by our sauiour Christ or anie Euangelist or Apostle swaruing in sense from the Hebrew They cite not alwaies the words but they keepe most truelie the sense and meaning euer more Lastlie it is one thing to translate the scripture and an other to cite a place of scripture In citing a place it is sufficient to obserue the true meaning in translating it is necessarie to keepe the wordes as neare as maie be Our sauiour his Euangelists and Apostles were no translatours of scripture but they truelie deliuered the sense of such places as they alledged out of scripture The Apostle you say alledging a place out of the psalme Psa 19.5 Their sound is gone into all the earth followed not the Hebrew First I answere the sense is all one Rom. 10.18 whether you translate their sound or their line is gone forth secondlie Iohn Isaac can tell you Contra Lindā lib. 3. p. 148. that the hebrew word Kau must signifie not onelie a line but also as much as Kol a sound which if it be so Act. 13.41 then hath the Apostle kept the verie word The place in the Actes which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc hath no difference in substance The Prophet saith Behold among the Gentiles c. The Apostle citeth the place thus Habac. 1.5 Behold ye scorners Howsoeuer some diuersitie maie appeare in the wordes the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alledging authorities out of the old Testament Your third example in Saint Iames sheweth Iam. 4.6 that the Apostle cited the words of the Greeke not of the hebrew which is graunted to be oftentimes in the new Testament vsed But to alledge the sense of a place therin to follow some translation is another thing then to translate the text it selfe The Hebrew text is to this sense He mocketh the mockers and giueth grace to the meeke Pron 3.34 Saint James rehearseth the wordes thus God resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble The sense is not altered seeing these mockers are the proude men of this world and God mocketh them when he resisteth them But tell me now whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt or no. I think you dare not so affirme seeing your latine vulgar which you account authenticall agreeth with the Hebrew for the two last places Then what is your argument out of these examples gladly would I vnderstand if you could tell That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the olde testament according to the Greeke Haue an eie to M.R. conclusion and it shal appeare he speaketh beside the purpose was it because the Hebrew was contaminated as you speake If it were then must you confesse your latine translation which you so much esteeme to be full of corruption Would you translate these places according to the Greeke because you finde them cited by the Apostles according to the Greeke Expound your dreame Master Rainolds your selfe and tell vs what you saw Caluine you charge for cutting the place of Iames cleane awaie Lay not the Printers fault vppon Caluine If he had meant as you surmise he would haue cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also But there you haue it set downe in the text and expounded in the commentary Your spposes haue small weight to ground an argument vpon pag. 290. you may deuise and imagine any thing what you liste Euery canonicall booke of the olde testament is extant in the same language wherin it was written As for your bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees it is no matter in what tongue or by whome they were set forth That S. Matthewe writ his Gospell in Hebrew is affirmed I graunt by auncient fathers but affirmed onelie not prooued and arguments there be manie to the contrarie But admit that so it were the Greeke was set forth in the Apostles daies as the same authors confesse and by them commended to the Church as the true and authenticall history written by S. Matthewe and of vs is so to be accounted As for the Hebrew of that Gospell now extant your selfe beleeue not I thinke it is the same that Saint Matthew writ if he writ anie at all in Hebrue Looke now to the force of this supposition a litle better your selfe if you haue grace to consider it aright which you saie is wanting in me you will confesse it prooueth nothing My words by you translated I acknowledge pag. 291. c. out of which three things you note First that I confesse you refuse not the fountaines but because you thinke them to be corrupt which yet is not by me any where confessed The fountaines indeed you refuse and of this refusall the reason you pretend to be that they are corrupt Yet thinke I not that so you are in trueth perswaded it being contrarie to all reason that the translation generallie should be more pure and incorrupt then the fountaine it selfe from whence it is deriued Secondlie that I affirme you thus to say because the fountaines be not so commodious for you as the translation This to be the true cause in deede any man may soone perceiue that throughlie indifferentlie considereth your dealing this in some examples I haue alreadie shewed and can more at large declare when occasion shall require Thirdlie that I tell you the fountaines are more pure and holesome then the latine edition Verilie this I beleeue and this can I prooue and this shal in the discourse following appeare whatsoeuer you haue alledged or can alledge to the contrarie In your entrie to the question you thinke to gaine credit to your vulgare translation by S. Ieromes authoritie pag. 294. who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latine translation of the new Testament Hier. in prefat in nonū Test S. Ierome I reuerence Damasus I commend the worke I confesse to be godlie profitable to the Church But if Ierome or Damasus maie bring anie waight of commendation to your latine translation how much more ought we to haue in high and holie reuerence the Hebrewe and Greeke text which was written not by Ierome or anie such father of meane credite but by the Prophets by the Apostles and Euangelists not at the request of Damasus or other like Bishop but by commaundement from God and direction of the holie Ghost S. Ierome tooke paines at Damasus request in the foure Euangelists of his owne accord in manie bookes of the olde Testament but this maketh nothing for your assertion but
for a season and afterwardes restoring them to health saith thus his flesh is made fresh as in his childhood your translator hath altered the wordes and the sense in this sorte his flesh is consumed with punishments Consumpta est earo eiusà supplicits Such faultes as these which are indeede grosse and great faultes in translating the scriptures is your translation of this booke replenished withall I haue not laboured to note euerie particular fault for that had bene a busines too tedious But of manie I haue picked out certaine whereby the reader maie conceiue what to iudge aright of your wholl translation Now let vs come to the booke of Psalmes which of all bookes of scripture is in your translation most corrupted so as I maie truelie affirme that in some one shorte Psalme in latine moe may be founde then you shall euer finde in the Hebrew text of all the bookes of the Bible Which came to passe by this meanes for that in S. Ieromes daies the other bookes in the latine translation were corrected according to the Hebrewe but this booke onely although it needde as much correction as any other The booke of Psalmes in the latine vulgar translation moste corrupt yet because it was in the corruptions thereof so generallie vsed as it could not be chaunged without much trouble and offense in the Church was not dealt withall by S. Ierome but suffered to remaine as it was and to carie still about with it those manifolde greeuous sores which shoulde with diligence in time haue bene cured This being by the best of your owne side confessed it is a wonder that Genebrard your Hebrew Doctor of Paris would labour so much with all his wit and cunning to make some agreement betwene your translation the text wherin as he hath taken verie greate paines so hath he shewed himselfe in manie places altogether ridiculous in deuising such seelie shifts as he is enforced for some shew of consente in the meaning howsoeuer the wordes sound most diuerslie And when he hath searched all the corners of his heade for reasonable expositions yet is he faine oftentimes to giue ouer and let the wordes quietlie passe without his construction If I should gather and set downe in particulare discouerie the corruptions of this booke this onelie worke would be a volume of greater quantitie then is the Psalter it selfe Therefore as hetherto I haue done so wil I proceed to take a litle of much and in certaine euident examples of sundrie places set before the readers eyes how vnworthie your translation of this booke is to be called by the name of so worthie a scripture In the second Psalme a text that concerneth our sauiour Christ as notablie as anie almost in the olde Testament psal 2.12 is shamefullie peruerted in your translation For where the Prophet Dauid exhorteth al to kisse the sonne Naâ—heku-bar that is to submit themselues to Iesus Christ and his gospell setting forth in these wordes a plaine testimonie of his Godhead and distincte person your translation saith no more in this place but onelie thus Apprehendite disciplinam Apprehend discipline which though it be a good admonition yet is it farre short of the true sense and excellent doctrine therein contained And this maie be an argument of great weight to prooue that the Iewes are not honestly dealt withall by you in that you accuse them to haue corrupted the Hebrewe text for malice against our Sauiour Christ For if they had bene mooued indeed with such a diuelish intention would they haue suffered this text to haue stoode in such sinceritie especiallie hauing so great opportunitie to change the words as was offered vnto them by the Greeke and latine translations In the 3. Psalme the Prophet saith psal 3.8 Thou hast smitten all mine enemies vpon the cheeke boneâ— your translation hath thus Lechi thou haste smitten all those that are mine enemies without a cause Sine cansa Howbeit Genebrarde stoutlie defendeth your translation in this place and obiecteth ignoraunce to those that reprooue it Let all your Hebricians be iudges and let Iohn Isaac a Iewe and a learned Iewe in that tongue answere Genebrarde If this had bene so cleare a case as Genebrarde maketh it could Isaac with a number more as Vatablus Pagnine Tremellius all as good Hebricians as Genebrarde no disgrace to him haue bene ignorant thereof In the fourth Psalme psalm 4.3 being but a verie short one your translation hath three euident faultes which cannot by anie shift be excused reasonablie First there is how long will ye be of a heauie heart Vsque quo graui â—orde in stead of these wordes how long will ye turne my glorie into shame for this to be the true reading euen your Genebrard was compelled to acknowledge and therfore he deuiseth and imagineth what the Septuagints perhaps followed And about this place Lindâ—â—e hath kept a sturre if he might by anie meanes saue the credit of your translation But Isaac his master in the hebrew tongue hath sufficientlie taken him vp for his dealing herein v. 8 Againe there is a word in your translation added to the text in the 8. verse Olei as Genebrard confesseth saying it was done by the 70. interpreters propheticallie which yet he cannot prooue and we wil not graunt Comâ—ungimini for silete And before in the 5. verse is one word put for an other to some change of the sense In the 12. Psalme Psal 12.6 being according to your editions the 11. which difference in numbring continueth to the end almoste and this maie fuffice to haue bene once remembred where the Prophet bringeth in the Lord speaking I will vp and sett him at libertie though he laie a snare for him these wordes are thus translated in your latine Psalter I will deale boldlie in him Fiducialiter again in â—o of which wordes Genebrard himselfe cannot deuise a conuenient interpretation and therefore he wandreth vp and downe and vanisheth awaie in the mist of his owne conceite In the fourteenth Psalme your latine translation hath three wholl verses together moe psal 14. then are to be found either in the Hebrewe or Greeke and are taken out of Saint Paul in the third to the Romanes being gathered by him out of seuerall places of the scriptures Hier. in promoe 10. Esâ—i as Saint Ierome hath noted But some in former times more hastie then wel aduised seeing the Apostle alledge so long a sentence together thought the same was written in some place of the olde Testament as it was by the Apostle recited and finding it no where supplied it in this place because of some wordes which the Apostle there hath rehearsed out of this Psalme And thus much do your owne men confesse euen Genebrard him selfe testifying that in the Hebrew now extant nothing is wanting If then nothing wanteth as he confesseth is it not a plaine case that these three
to the sonne of God and may not be communicated vnto anie man whosoeuer And therfore neuer did our Church giue that title in such wordes vnto the Prince not yet did the Prince euer chalenge the same and so herein is no dissension For the Princes lawfull supreame authoritie in procuring for the Church a good and peaceable estate in defending of the same by maintaining Gods true religion worshipp against heretikes and schissmatikes in remoouing of manifest abuses and disorders in causing the ministers of the Church according to their offices and vocations to execute their duties faithfullie in punishing them if they be found negligent al this with assistance of godlie and learned Ministers of the Church by that absolute and immediat commission which euery souereigne Christian Prince hath receiued from the Lord God being not subiect to anie foraine power of Priest or potentat this also all Protestants confesse with full consent therein condemning the Popes Antichristian supremacie who contrarie to Gods worde chalengeth a sole supreame gouernment ouer al Christian Princes Churches in the world Is this now a good proofe that Protestants haue no certentie in their faith Secondlie pag. 11. touching baptisme Master Rainolds thinketh he hath found some contradiction betweene the communion booke which affirmeth that by baptisme children are regenerate and wherein the Minister exhorteth the people not to doubt but Christ will giue to the Infants baptized eternall life and betweene the disputation in the Tower of London the second daie 〈…〉 wherein the doctors teach that al those who are baptize◠are the sonnes of god If your eies were matches things that are but one would not thus appeere double vnto you Babtisme is the sacrament of new birth wherein our adoption by Christ is sealed vnto vs and we are made the sonnes of God as manie as beleeue both sacramentallie and spirituallie the vnbeleeuers onelie sacramentallie Wherefore this is not so to be vnderstood as though whosoeuer is baptized shall therefore be sure to haue eternall life For Simon Magus was baptized and yet condemned and so also manie moe besides notwithstanding their baptisme shal be excluded from fellowship with the Saints in Gods kingdome So that to be baptized proueth not necessarilie assurance and certentie of life euerlasting in all persons Why then might not the Doctors be bolde to saie that baptisme of it selfe hath not this force to make anie the childe of God that in baptisme none can be made the children of God if they be not his children by election For doubtles he that commeth to be baprized vnles he be one of Gods elect can not in baptisme receaue the gift of adoption which onely belongeth to those that are predestinate and elect and election is not begone in baptisme but was before the foundation of the world Againe betweene the communion booke and me Master Rainolds hath noted a manifest difference pag. 12. as he thinketh The booke hath sett downe an order of priuate baptisme and I finde fault with womens baptisme It is sufficient for answere to you that priuate baptisme is one thing and womens baptisme is another Priuate baptisme hath bene sometimes maintained and vsed in the Church but womens baptisme was neuer allowed in any tolerable state thereof neither doth the communion booke make anie mention of women nor doth giue any authority to women to minister baptisme And therfore reproouing and disalowing of baptisme to be done by women I haue not thereby spoken any word against our communion booke Concerning necessitie of baptisme wherein you would fasten vpon me some suspition of Anabaptisme I graunt baptisme is necessary if it may be had according to Christs ordinance and institution so that the contempt thereof is damnable but not in such sorte necessarie as that the lacke thereof without contempt shal bring a man into the state of condemnation If you will thrust out of Gods kingdome all that are not baptized you shall take awaie from the Lord manie of his deare children whome yet he will not deliuer ouer to your cruell iudgement and power of Sathan The communion booke appointeth not a sacrament of cōfirmation pag. 13. But yet there is an order for confirmation of children which for anie thing I know is in all communion bookes the same Shewe vs what fault you finde with vs for it and answere shall be giuen you sure I am in respect hereof you haue no cause to complaine of our vncertentie in the faith Pag. 14. About the article of Christs descension into hell I graunt there hath bene some diuersitie of iudgements yet so as the trueth of that article is confessed of all The manner of his descension may be doubted of by many protestants but your opinion that Christ in soule descended into hel to fetch vp the soules of the faithful deceased before his passion is generallie improoued Caluine saith not that Christ was damned aliue in soule vpon the Crosse as you foully slaunder him but that Christ taking vpon him selfe our sinnes and punishments suffered in minde those paines of hell for a time which we otherwise should haue sustained for euer Deny this and denie the iustice of God to be satisfied which taketh awaie al hope form vs of escaping the torments of hell and being throughlie reconciled with the Lord. Christs diuinitie acknowledged in our communion booke no protestant euer denied pag. 14. As for Caluins Autotheisme as you fondly terme it I haue answered if you can And if you list to read more of this matter I referre you to that which Lambertus Danaeus hath written against Genebrard and Iordane of Paris concerning the same Our doctrine in this behalfe is no other then hath bene the catholike doctrine of Christs Church euermore In labouring of malice to blaze abroade some heresy of Caluine your selues are now become defenders of heresy against the blessed Trinitie For tell me Master Rainolds if the substance of the Godhead be the same in the sonne and the father and the substance of the father be God of it selfe must not the Godhead of the sonne be of it selfe But you confessing in words Christ to be God in denying him to be God of himselfe take his diuinitie from him indeed For God is of himselfe God by propertie of his owne nature and substance which in denying you are proceeded as farre and somewhat farther then the wicked Archeretike Arius I could turne you ouer to your owne schoolemen and bid you to striue against them In Centil conclus 62. Quod Christus secundùm existentiam diuinam non est filius Des. letting Caluine alone Looke vpon William Ockam a famous schooleman who was not affraid to publish this position amongst his hundred diuinitie conclusions That Christ according to his diuine being is not the sonne of God which how he expoundeth there maie you see but if Caluine had written in such termes whoe could haue staied the outragious cauilling of
you haue alreadie had and shal hereafter haue most euident demonstration The fault no dout is verie hainous wherupon he frameth so sore an inditement or els he a malitious enemie that for no cause accuseth so bitterlie If I haue not set downe euerie word of Doctor Saunders booke doth it therfore follow that I did it of an irreligious or vnconscionable intent What man pretenâ—ing conscience or religion would thus surmise seing for his life he can not shew that I haue concealed or omitted the least moment of anie one argument that I haue taken to answere in his booke If then I haue cut of in one or two Chapters some parte of his words being long and tedious for no other cause in the world but onely to auoide prolixitie what blame I haue therein deserued I put it to the verdite of all indifferent religious and conscionable men to pronounce These men in pretending to answere our bookes maie deale as they lift maie omit anie thing at their pleasure maie sert downe no more then shall like them best maie reporte things that were not written and all this shall escape in them without reproofe If we leaue out a few wordes being nothing els but wordes for cumbring out bookes and readers with multitude of vnnecessarie talke this must be made a great crime here is want of Religion and conscience and this must suffice to discredite all the rest with those that will beleeue such subtill and slaunderous persuasions The same practise he obiecteth also to Master Doctor Iewell pag. 75. the late worthie Bishop of Sarisburie of blessed memorie whoe yet I am persuaded hath dealt as faithfullie and sincerelie with Doctor Harding as anie aduersarie hath euer done with another In his Replie he hath printed D. Hardings wholl booke omitting nothing from the beginning to the end and made to all that he alledged for maintenance of his seuerall causes a moste learned and perfect answere the which as yet was neuer refelled nor neuer can be I am sure Now consider the dealing of Doctor Harding in his Reioynder which besides it is made but to one onelie article of seauen and twentie it hath in a hundred places omitted much so as in truth not halfe the Replie is intirely repeated and answered In the defense of the Apologie he hath indeede abridged Doctor Hardings Confutation being of such length and bignes as was not conuenient wholly to be printed with the defense But let them if they can shew some argument dissembled or passed ouer in silence in all that which in the impression is omitted Which forsomuch as they cannot it is no matter though manie legions of such idle words as he hath filled that booke withal were suppressed and drowned And I praie you how hath D. Harding behaued him-selfe in his detection Hath he done as you accufe M. Iewel for not doeing Nothing les Then why should M. Iewell be accounted more worthie of blame then D. Harding hauing made no other fault then that wherin D. Harding hath much more offended then he That I haue in those places omitted some wordes I graunt Master Rainolds pag. 77. c. and the cause thereof I haue trulie declared But tell me where is any part or proofe of Saunders demonstrations vnanswered If you will examine what I haue answered to euerie one in order you shall finde I haue not dealt any waies vntrulie or craftilie as you would haue men think I did but soundlie and sufficientlie disprooued whatsoeuer he hath disputed in any Chapter of those fourty demonstrations short or long If you be angrie with me for not reciting all his wordes and answering them particularlie this vnderstand that I for my parte would rather grinde in a mill all the daies of my life then be bound to answere such infinite loquacitie and garrulitie as Doctor Saunders and your selfe and other your companions vse in your writings You poure forth such floodes or rather seas of words that it is a moste intollerable wearines to wade therein although daunger of drowning or taking great harme there can be none But as to answere your wordes is a thing most tedious besides it is vnnecessarie so your reasons againe are answeared with as great delight comforte and facilitie And if you thinke I haue not thoroughlie answeared euerie demonstration of Doctor Saunders it is free for you to resume or prosecute the controuersie which no doubt at this time you would haue done being thereto so specially by your superiors appointed but that you mistrusted somewhat in your cause and in your selfe And although you promise some thing shall follow hereafter yet considering both the practize of Papists and a prouisoe which here you make I thinke we are to looke for litle more at your handes in defense of Saunders demonstrations Their practise is lest they might be thought vnhable to answere our bookes to set forth some answere to a part and then so dainlie to breake of with pretense of necessarie reason and promise of proceading further at a more conuenient season and yet neuer to performe anie such matter So the defender of the Censure in the middes of his answere picketh a quarrell to make an end for that present as though he meant at better leasure to finish the whol But it rester has he left it then and so is like to doe still So Master Rainolds purposing perhaps some such matter hath yet prouided aforehand that if he faile in further answere it shall not be taken in euill parte seeing he hath restrained his promise with that exception if he be not letted by those that haue the regiment of his life and studies It may be that they being discreet men will suffer Master Rainolds to proceed no further lest as of that which he hath written alreadie no great profit hath redounded to their cause so in that which is to follow concerning Antichrist he rather hurt them much then helpe them anie thing at all Master Rainolds concludeth his preface with a certaine Aduertisement to the Reader pag. 84. wherein first he noteth what kind of printes and editions he vseth of such bookes as commonlie he alledgeth not of the auncient fathers for of them he alledgeth verie fewe but of the late writers with whose testimonies and sentences he hath fraughted his booke from one end to another If anie man haue pleasure or purpose to peruse his authorities therein he may be something holpen by this direction which M. R. hath so carefully though not much needfullie gathered and prefixed before his booke Albeit I thinke that not many Readers of what iudgement soeuer they are in religion considering how litle waight of matter is in those allegations wil greatlie cumber themselues with seeking the impressions turning the volumes and perusing the quotations the labour being far greater then the profit Secondlie he talketh much and dispureth to and fro by what name he maie call vs Christians pa. 86. or Catholikes or heretikes
or protestants or Zuinglians or Sacramentaries whereof no dout there was great cause in this manner to aduertise the reader You call vs indeede at your pleasure by such names as your maliciouse and railing spirites can inuent sometime by one and sometime by another Christians and Catholikes you will not haue vs named reseruing that denomination to your selues to whome notwithstanding of al professors of Christian religion the same doth least appertaine For our partes soe long as we are sure that the doctrine which we follow is the eternall word of God and gospell of his sonne Christ as we are by Gods grace most sure seeing it is plainlie set downe in the holie scriptures of the olde and new Testament we care not what you thinke of vs or what you speake of vs or by what names you reproche vs. If you blaspheme the doctrine of Christ and call it heresie not fearing or sparing the Lord himselfe it is no wonder if you reuile vs with all opprobrious names that can possiblie be deuised We tell you notwithstanding that if a Christian be he that beleeueth in Christ according to his word if Catholikes be they that professe the vniuersall faith of Christ we are truelie Christians and Catholikes beleeuing soe and professing so Lutheranes we are not Zuinglianes we are not Caluinists we are not because we mantaine not anie priuate or proper doctrine of Luther or Zuinglius or Caluine no more then the faithfull ought in the primitiue Church to haue bene called Paulines or Petrines or Athanasians or by the name of anie other such minister of Christ Be ye called diuersly Franciscanes Benedictines Dominicanes Iesuites and whatsoeuer other title ye can take vp we are not greeued at the multitude and varietie of your names who being in truth almost anie thing rather then Christians delight in any name rather then in the name of Christians But to vs this one name is sufficient and such as are equiualent therewith we are content with it we desire no other As for the name of Protestants if you thinke it belongeth not to vs giue it them whose it is being not a name of Schisme or sect it may as well be vsed as the name of Catholikes and for distinction sake onelie being begon first at the diet of Argsburgh we are enforced to vse it Lastlie Master Rainolds protesteth his readines to submit himselfe to the trueth pag. 92. to defend a fault or to correct it This indeed is too great indifferencie and readines whereby it appeereth you are not resolued in your selfe but can be content to applie your iudgement and trauail in defense or reproofe of anie opinion good or bad true or false Correct your faults Master Rainolds but leaue of to maintaine them I haue in this booke made them plaine enough both to your selfe and to others you cannot but see them God giue you grace to acknowledge them to be ashamed of them and as you haue promised to correcte them You knowe that in this booke you haue wrangled without measure you haue railed without shame you haue committed as foule and notorious faults in reasoning as anie man could doe your Logike is naught your diuinitie is worse and your conscience as it maie seeme is worst of all If there yet remaine in you anie drop of that simplicitie which you professe then giue ouer defense of such vntrueth reforme your iudgement and returne by repentance from whence you are fallen If you continew in willful Apostasie your blood be vpon your owne head you haue bene warned and would not harken I referre you to the Lordes iudgement who shall get glorie either by your conuersion and saluation or els by your finall hardening and condemnation The Lord hath made all things for himself yea the wicked for the daie of euill M. RAINOLDS HATH DIVIDED HIS BOOKE INTO Chapters which diuision I haue orderlie followed in mine answere The argumens of his Chapters is set downe in the table following CHAP. 1. Concerning the Epistle of S. Iames. Pag. 1. CHAP. 2. Of the Canonicall Scriptures and English Cleaergie Pag. 20. CHAP. 3. Of Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers Pag. 47. CHAP. 4. Of Priesthoode and of the sacrifice continued after Christ. Pag. 58. CHAP. 5. Of penance and the value of good workes touching iustification and life eternall Pag. 92. CHAP. 6. Of reproouing the auncient fathers for their doctrine touching good workes Pag. 133. CHAP. 7. Of Master Iewels chalenge Pag. 146. CHAP. 8. Of Bezaes translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the Reall presence Pag. 172. CHAP. 9. Of certaine places of Saint Chrysostome touching the Reall presence Pag. 193. CHAP. 10. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospell which Bezae is charged to haue corrupted Pag. 209. CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English bibles Pag. 218. CHAP. 12. Concerning the latine bible which Master Rainolds maintaineth to be more sincere then the Hebrew now extant Pag. 227. CHAP. 13. Of the newe Testament in latine and a comparison of the vulgare translator with all other of this age Pag. 32â— CHAP. 14. Wherein Master Rainolds laboreth to prooue that it is the verie waie to Atheisme and infidelitie to leaue the ordinarie translation of the Bible and to appeale to the Hebrew Greeke and such new diuerse translations as the Protestants haue made Pag. 345. CHAP. 15. Of the New Testament set forth in the Colledge of Rhemes Pag. 364. CHAP. 16. Of the faultes found in the Annotations of the New Testament Pag. 377. CHAP. 17. Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations Pag. 401. AN ANSWERE TO MASTER RAINOLDS REFVTATION CHAP. 1. Concerning the Epistle of S. Iames. ALThough our Aduersaries haue continuallie endeuored to abase and extenuat the authoritie of the holy Scriptures The Papistes are enemies of the scriptures in many respects by matching with them the credit of Traditions deuised by men by submitting them to the iudgement of Fathers and Councels and hanging them vpon their interpretations and moste notoriously by bringing them into captiuitie vnder the Pope so that his pleasure and determination must stand for their true sense meaning as it is confessed by them selues and knowne to the world yet will they seeme neuerthelesse to be very zealous in defense of the scriptures charge the Protestants with that impiety whereof them-seues are moste of all guiltie As this hath beene their common practise of long time thereby to make some beleeue that we contemne the Scriptures of God which of all Christians are to be had in moste high regard and reuerence and of vs alwaies haue beene esteemed no otherwise then their incomparable maiestie authority requireth being the word of the eternall God so of late Edmond Campian in his booke made this the first and principall cause of his Chalenge Camp ra 1. for that he sawe vs through dispaire as he sayeth compelled to laie hands and offer violence to the holie bookes of
Christ the truth You cannot pul in sunder these two offices but if you wil needs be priests that properly according to this order of Melchis then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseparablie annexed to it it must necessarilie followe that you are also kinges and that properlie which were a verie proper thing indeede and greatlie to be accounted of Popish priests if they be according to Melchisedechs order must not be priests onelie but also kings If you deuide these offices in sunder it is blasphemy making a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech whoeis not also a king If you take both iointlie to your selues then will euerie hedge Priest be a gentleman a lord a King As this is most absurd monstrous so is that also that you should be priests according to Melchisedechs order For then further ought you to be eternall without beginning or ending of daies without father or mother as Melchisedech is described vnto vs in the scriptures and as Christ is in trueth and onely Christ So taking vpon you this priesthood of Melchisedech you commit horrible sacriledge and treason against the person of Christ our sauiour who will in time tread such vermine vnder his feete that creeping on the earth do presumptuously chalenge to themselues his speciall prerogatiues and royalties S. Augustine calling the ministers of the Gospell Priests speaketh improperlie Pag. 65. August de eiuit dei Lib. 20 cap. 10. as hath bene answered For although he saieth that all Christians are vnproperly called Preists and others in the Church are so called properly yet he meaneth not that there are anie such preists in the Church as Melchisedech or Aaron or Christ was but onelie that they are so termed by an vsuall and peculiar name which is not in custome of speach giuen generallie to all Christians This to haue bene S. Augustines meaning and the iudgement of the Church heretofore we may learne of Peter Lumbard How the fathers cal the ministers of the Gospell Priests Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. â— to let the auncient writers passe For Peter first asketh this question whether that which the Preist doth may properly be called a sacrifice oblation His answere he maketh thus To this may be said briefly that which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation that was made vppon the altar of the crosse Yf then there remaine in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word as your owne doctour and Master of sentences confesseth there can not be remaining any Priests that maie so be called properlie For such as the kinde of sacrifice is such is also the kinde of priesthood if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly but onely by a figuratiue and vnproper maner of speach That Augustine was a priest him-selfe Pag. 66. August Cofes Lib. 9. cap. 11.12.13 you labour to prooue out of his booke of Confessions in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice yet he meaneth not such altares and sacrifices as you haue erected and offered in all places This sacrifice that he speaketh of is the sacrament of Christes death the altar is the Lords table the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar is giuing of thankes to God for her in celebrating the Lords supper Although I denie not but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church so that if you will needes vrge that Monica desired to haue praiers made for her I will not greatly stand with you herein But that anie real sacrifice of Christ as you meane was offered for quick or dead in those daies that I denie and you can not prooue it by this or anâ— other testimonie of S. Augustine Where I saie that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors for euer and not to Priestes pag. 67. you demaund whether this appointment had effect or no giue me warning to beware as though some danger were at hand what I answere But we shall easilie I trust driue awaie this craking Annibal from the gates of our Citie who commeth only to make a shew and hath no force to hurt Ephi 4.11 Ministers of the Gospell are ueuer called priests in the new Testament That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church the scripture is plaine so that you may not forshame deny it now if these were priests trulie and properlie then should they haue bene so called and by this name commended vnto vs in the scriptures But wheras their office is declared diuerslie in great varietie of names yâ—t is this name neuer once giuen vnto them in no Gospell in no epistle in no booke of the new testament And maie we thinke that if the ministers of Christ in the new Testament were by Gods institution verie Priestes as these men beare vs in hand and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice as no Priest euer the like saue Christ himselfe may we thinke I saie or is it likelie that this name should neuer haue bene found in all the new Testament in this sense where are so manifold titles giuen vnto them as of Elders Ouerseers Rulers Shepheards Watchmen Ministers Stewards Seruants and such like Of all which names none pleaseth their humor but Priests they wil be called accounted as though Gods spirite which appointeth offices in the Church could not haue giuen fit names vnto them but would rather giue them anie name then that which is their proper name Anie man then that hath but halfe an eie maie soone see that the holie ghost in auoiding this name so carefullie hath giuen our Popish Priests a cleane wipe and both left them out of the dore and shut the dore against them though they striue neuer so much to creepe in yet are they to be driuen awaie by lawfull authoritie and kept forth as they that haue nothing at all to do in Gods howse But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument which I thinke because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place hath halde it in here out of place He bids me shew where this Church for many hundred yeares was gogouerned thus which is as common an argument with them to vse his owne words as Dunstable hiewaie For this reason is euen their common pack-horse to beare the wholl burthen when all other faile where was your Church where were your ministers before Luther Whereunto that you may perceiue how farre we disagree from the Donatistes of whome you speake I answere that our Church was neuer so straited but that it might be found in all countreis christened and our ministers had the chiefest roomes till Antichrist by litle and litle had driuen them out and then afterwards
and detestable in the eies of the God of heauen This therefore is a sure reason and shal stand against the gates of hell and force of all papistes that Christ is a Priest for euer and hath an euerlasting Priesthood Therefore he is the onely Priest of the new Testament and his Priesthood is not communicated to anie other and so your priestes are no priests your sacrifice is no sacrifice your Religion is no Religion your Christ is no Christ your God is no God Depart from them whosoeuer will not be partakers of their condemnation To shew this reason to be childish Pag. 76. you haue brought indeed a childish exception Christ is you saie a true man for euer a king for euer our doctor master and teacher for euer yet are there many men kings doctors teachers besides Christ. An obiection of M.R. answered This man is suddenlie so drowned in the dreggs of poperie that he hath lost all taste and sense of trueth for els he would haue bene ashamed of such an answere which nothing cōmeth neare the matter We speake of those offices which Christ was apointed to beare by the annointing of the holie ghost and special commission from God you bring instance of things that be of an other condition and nature as to be a true man an earthlie King an outward minister of the word such like Christ is our onelie king Prophet and Priest so that in this sense in which these are giuen to him none can be King Prophet or Priest but he For he onelie is our spiritual King he onely is our teacher and author of all heauenlie doctrine he onelie can offer the sacrifice propitiatorie for the sinnes of the world If you thinke anie can be a King or Prophet in this manner but onelie he you take his honour from him and giue it to an other to whome it doth not appertaine which you do indede most notably in sesing your selues vpon his Priesthood which doth as truelie belong to him alone as the other of his Kingdome and Prophecie do Now then weigh with your selfe what a witles obiection you haue made and if you can bring no better defense for your Priestes then your haue hetherto done you haue good cause to be sorie and ashamed that euer you changed your copie and of a minister of the Gospel became a priest of the popish order God giue you grace to repent that the fruite of Christes priesthood maie not be denied vnto you another daie That which followeth is but a supplie of superfluous wordes without wit without learning without trueth The comparison you make betwene an earthly prince and Christ doth nothing fit your purpose For if you haue as lawfull authoritie vnder Christ to exercise a priesthood as the ciuil gouernours haue vnder their prince to execute their office laid vpon them then shew your commission and we require no more For as no man dare presume in the affaires of the state to commaund or enterprise anie thing in the princes name without a sufficient warrant from the prince so maie no man take vpon him anie ecclesiasticall function in the Church vlnes he haue a commaundement from the Lord. But Christ neuer gaue you anie such commaundement he neuer laid vpon you any such office he neuer called you to this honour to be his fellow priestes els bring vs your Charter that we maie se it and shew vs your letters of orders that we may trie them And further you are to consider that although the prince bestow offices preferments vpon his subiects as pleaseth him yet his Regalities he keepeth to himselfe and no subiect wil presume to chalenge them Pharao gaue Ioseph as great authoritie as anie princes vse to giue anie of their seruants yet the chaire of estate he kept to himselfe therin he was aboue him But you moste rudelie and arrogantlie intrude your selues into Christs seate and will not onelie be his vicepriests but as good priests as he ioined in the same commission with him according to the same order of Melchisedech that he was of so you are not content with such offices as he hath appointed vnto you but you claime his chiefest principalities which is no lesse a fault then high treason against the hiest maiesty M. Rain maketh an end of this treatise with an other foolish cauil taken out of the communion booke wherein he saith commission is giuen in some cases to the minister to remitt sinnes whie saie you in some cases The Minister of God hath power to forgiue sinnes not in some cases onelie but in all whatsoeuer if the sinner repent beleeue the gospell This authoritie is giuen vnto him by Christ this the parlament communion booke confesse this the ministers daylie practise amongst vs. Neuertheles you are still as farre from your purpose as before For this maketh not our ministers to be priests but preachers of repentance which bring the glad tidings of the gospell to all those that be heauie laden and desire to be refreshed Neither haue they power themselues to forgiue sinnes Mar. 2.7 for God onelie forgiueth sinnes but hauing the word of reconciliation committed vnto them from God they offer pardon and in his name pronounce pardon to the sinner that turneth from his sinnes vnto the Lord. If you know this why striue you against a knowen confessed truth If you be ignorant what commission the ministers haue receiued of Christ then be content to learn it out of the word of god As for your priests you haue alleadged nothing to prooue their calling and authoritie lawfull and I haue shewed that the scriptures giuing all priesthood after Melchis order to Christ onelie haue wrung in sunder the necks of your popish sacrificers and therefore it is the duetie of all Christians whose saluation consisteth in the sacrifice priesthood of Christ to thinke of you as you are indeed enemies of Christ Baalites idolatrous Antichristian Priestes whose punishment shal be with the Beast in the lake that burneth with fire brimstone for euer The Lord open the eies of his people that they may see your wickednes and beware of you least they be in wrapped in the same condemnation with you CHAP. 5. Of penance and the value of good workes touching iustification and life eternall IN the beginning of this Chapter M. Rainolds chafeth and laieth about him on euery side Pag. 82. c. striking now at one man now at another sometime this waie sometime that as though he were suddenly fallen into some maladie great distemperature in his head The occasion riseth vpon my words in saying our aduersaries doctrine cannot stand vnlesse we will alow for good those thinges that in the writings of the fathers are moste faultie And whoe knoweth not if he haue read any thing in the fathers The Popish religion gathered of the corruptions of fathers former times but that the popish religion for the moste part is
you more substantially prooued For my part I thinke not and so do the best Hebricians that I haue read both protestants papists The text in the hebrew is easie enough and yealdeth a true and godlie sense Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. prooueth no error in the Hebrew but onelie in your latine translation The Hebrewe in all the copies olde and new vnles one wilfullie corrupted by Guido Fabricius hath one reading whereby a comfortable promisse is set forth that the womans seed shal bruse the serpents head your translation containeth grosse impiety blasphemie referring that moste excellent worke to the woman which onelie appertaineth to the seed of the woman About this you saie the Protestants keepe a sturre And cause I thinke M.R. is angry with vs for making sturr about the chiefe promises of our redemption Such regarde haue the papists either of their owne or of our saluation wherefore some sturre should be kepte vnles it be no matter if whatsoeuer belongeth vnto our sauiour Christ were applied to the blessed virgine his mother as in this place moste horriblie and in the Psalmes alreadie hath bene notoriouslie performed by you in token of your great loue to our Ladie but small regarde of our Lorde That we haue charged the Apostle with anie error is a bolde manifest vntruth Pag. 324. Betweene the Apostles citation 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. the Prophet Esayes authoritie Chap. 64. v. 4. there is some diuersity in one word The Prophet hath expectanti ipsum to him that waiteth for him the Apostle diligentib ipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that loue him Which diuersitie came not through ouersight or error in the Apostle but either that the Apostle followed the common reading of the Greeke or as his manner for the moste part is did take the sense not tying himself to the words For they that loue God are such only such as waite for him and this waiting for god ariseth of the loue of God You think the Apostle Prophet in these words declared the vnspeakeable ioyes of heauen which are prepared for the children of God and therefore you frame an argumente against iustification by faith Proude blasphemies vttered by M.R. against Gods word which you in your accustomed spirit of blasphemie call our mathematicall solifidian fansie because the Apostle writeth that God hath prepared so great things for those that loue him By the things which the eie hath not seene the eare not heard the heart not conceiued is meant the doctrine and mysteries of the gospell which the Lord hath reueiled to such as waite for him or loue him And to let you expound the wordes according to your owne sense doth this make any thing against the doctrine of iustification by faith onelie that God prepareth euerlasting inexplicable ioies for those that loue him For whome should they be prepared but for such as indeed loue him But is our loue worthie that rewarde Is it giuen to such as loue him in respect and for the merit of their loue This must you prooue if you will refell our doctrine in this behalfe But this was no matter to be handled in this place It was a poore glance and did no harme Here M.R. bringeth in a troupe of authorities together pag. 326. c. to prooue that false which I haue said and all true that he saith long sentences are translated out of Castalion D. Humfraie Pelicane and Munster wherby howsoeuer it fareth with his cause the volume of his booke is well increased For whereto serue these testimonies alledged That through negligence or ignorance of the writers printers some faultes may be found in the Hebrew Bibles I thinke there be none that wil denie but what makeh al this to purpose seeing there be a thousand times moe such faults in your translations then can be found in the fountaines your long speaches and discourses either in other mens words or in your owne when they come to scanning are short enough and therefore may in a short answere be discharged Your comparison of Iewes and Protestants in rayling at the Pope and Romane Church I passe ouer Two examples Master Rainolds willeth me to consider pag. 332. One the greate diuersitie of reading That in the text is such diuersity I deny The Iewes may perhaps in their Commentaries be of diuerse opinions touching the reading but in the text litle or no diuersitie shall you finde in so much that Ioannes Isaac affirmeth Lib. 2 pag. 69. there is soe great consent and agreement in the Bibles that no booke of the bible can be shewed written with the hand of a Iewe which either hath any thing that others want or wanteth any thing that others haue This may plainelie argue an exceading care to keepe their Bibles from all manner of corruption althoughe this that he writeth may almoste seeme incredible An other experiment is that the Hebrewe printes want something now which certainelie was in the first originals Example hereof you bring the psalme 144. Which being made according to the Hebrew Alphabete as diuerse other are one verse is wanting wholly therein the 14. in number which should beginne with Nun. What cause there was of omitting this Acrostiche I will not take vpon me to vnderstand It is not of later times corrupted seeing the Chaldee hath not that verse And as it is now in the Hebrewe so was it in Saint Ieromes time and before when the Hebrewe Bibles were accounted most pure and yet then in the Latine psalter a verse was supplied So that howsoeuer the matter stande this prooueth not the translation to be of greater puritie and credit then the fountaine Cause there was doubtles why the Prophet left out the order of the letter but whether such as the Rabbines and Talmudâ—sts haue deuised I cannot affirme The like example haue you in the. 36. Psalme of your edition which being made after the same manner of the Hebrew Alphabet you haue not in it the letter Am. Reasons thereof are alledged both by Iewes and learned Papists but the place for all that they thinke not to be corrupted as you peraduenture will rashlie pronounce As for that in the Greeke and Latine of this Psalme there is a verse answerable the first word whereof in Hebrew beginneth with Nun Nasman Fidelis Dominus c. this prooueth not the fountaine to be corrupte or vnperfecte but the Septuagintes finding no verse for the letter Nun and thinking perhaps there was some want repeated the. 17. verse following the first onely being changed For this verse supplied by them and the other following is al one excepting onely the first worde It seemeth not that the Prophet was altogeather so curious to keepe the order of letters that if any be wanting in a Psalme of that kinde we ought therefore to suspecte corruption in the Hebrew In the Psalme 25. no verse beginneth with Vau and two beginne with Resh
the vulgare translation corruptions of all sorts great plentie yea almoste innumerable therefore that your argument against the fountaines is absurd Infinite notorious corruptions in the vulgar latine translation authorized by the Tridentine assem blie and moste vnreasonable to condemne them because of some faultes imagined whereas you approue a latine edition ten times worse then you can once with shew of trueth suspect them to be In the first Chapter of Genesis v. 30. certaine wordes are wanting in your vulgar Edition Gen. 1. v. 30. which are not onelie in all Hebrewe bookes but in the Greeke translation aso which is by manie hundred yeares far more ancient then the latine and therfore if your latine wil be tried by the verdit of these two witnesses it shal be conuicted of manifest corruption For where the Prophet Moses plainlie writeth that as the Lord had giuen to man for his meat euerie herbe and tree that yeeldeth fruite so he had also prouided â—uerâ—e greene herbe to be meat for the beasts birds Col jerck â—â—eseb creeping things these words so materiall and necessarie are in your latine bookes no where to be found How can you thinke to excuse this from corruption In the second Chap. v. 8. Gen. 2.8 the scripture saith both in the hebrew and greeke text that God had planted a garden in the East Mikkedent and so is it vnderstood of the learned writers that the garden wherein Adam for a time remained was sited in the east but your translator maketh the Prophet to speake otherwise A Principio that the Lord God had planted a garden of pleasure from the beginning Is this kinde of translating to be allowed in the word of God I thinke none of sounde iudgement good conscience will so esteeme In the thirde of Genes v. 15. a Capitall and intollerable corruption hath beene committed and still is continued and maintained by you in the wordes Gen. 3.15 wherein the Lord made vnto man the first promise of that redemption which should be wrought by our Sauiour Christ and in which the summe of the Gospell and all hope of our saluation is contained that the seede of the woman should bruise the head of the Serpent For thus speaketh the Lord to the Serpent Hâ—â— I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman and betweene thy seed and her seede He shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heele Thus hath the Prophet Moses reported the wordes of almightie God and so haue the seuentie interpreters translated them according to the Hebrew originall veritie Which notwithstanding in steede of He shall bruise thine heade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your latine translation hath Shee shall bruise thine head Ipsae and this Shee is meant the blessed virgine A foule a daungerous a damnable corruption thus defended and expounded Yea the verie enemies them selues that haue neuer so litle conscience and feare of God doe confesse that it ought to be redde otherwise then it is in your latine translation seeing it disagreeth from the Hebrewe and some auncient copies also of the vulgar latine edition haue ipse Andrad lib. 4. Defens Trid. and not ipsa Yet howsoeuer not onlie the Hebrew and Greeke texts lead vs to the true meaning of Gods promise made to mankinde in Iesus Christ yea and further some copies of the vulgar translation agree therewith neuertheles the Church of Rome that you may the better perceiue whose Church it is not regarding al this embraceth alloweth maintaineth the euident corruption as as you may finde not onelie in the Latine bookes of the vulgare edition reformed according to the Tridentine Councels appointment but also in the Catechisme set forth by authoritie of the same Councell Catechis Trident in artic Et in Iesum Christum and in the bookes of sundrie Papists that haue willinglie soulde them selues to loue and defend all Antichristes doctrine In the margent of your Bibles is printed for a fashion the true reading howbeit this not onelie excuseth nothing your willfull maintenance of detestable corruption but may rather make the same appeere more odious to all the faithfull For if you can set the true worde in the margent why might you not receiue it also into the text but onelie for that you are determined alreadie to be ashamed of nothing that may any waies bring aduantage to your corruptions though it be to the certaine euerlasting damnation of your soules And what goâ—lie man shall patientlie indure this blasphemie in your English transalation of the olde testament when it commeth forth where our comforte and hope hath bene that he who is the womans seed our blessed Lord and sauiour Christ should bruise the serpents head now we must turne it another waie and say thus she shal bruise the serpents heade If still you will speake in defense of this corruption you shal but barke against heauen it is too manifest too hainous too impudent In the fourth of Genes v. 8. Genes 4.8 your latine translation hath these wordes Let vs goe forth â—â—â—odiamur 〈…〉 in Hebr. question which are not in the Hebrew text nor yet in the Chaldee paraphrast S. Ierome hath giuen a note vpon them that they are superfluous and ought to be remoued And in the 15. verse of this Chapter one Hebrew word â—aken that signifieth wherefore or doubtles is vntruelie rendred by your translator thus Nequaquâ—â—â—ra fieâ—â— it shall not be so For the Lord said not that none should kill Kain but that whosoeuer killed him he should be punished seuen fold It maie not be graunted to anie translator of scripture thus to thrust in words at his pleasure whereby the sense is manifestlie changed In the sixt Chapter and 5. verse Gen. 6.5 where the Lord complaineth of mans corrupte nature and saith that the verie frame of the thoughts of his hart is onelie euill alwaies your translatour hath left out two words of great moment frame and onely jetsee rak and so like wise in the eight Chapter following verse 21. Gen. 8.21 where againe the Lord setteth forth the wickednes of mans corrupt nature and saith that the imagination of mans hart is euill raâ—â— your translator of his owne head hath put into the text a pretie word and soe maketh God to speake otherwise then he spake In malaâ— proua that it is prone to euill Who seeth not that by this worde is diminished that corruption and sinfulness whereof almightie God accuseth mankinde and wherewith he declareth mans hart to be replenished from his infancie This translation liketh you well because it doth not so fullie bewraie the infection of originall sinne as the true text of scripture doth therefore not so plainlie confuteth your heresie of freewill in man to please God before he be regenerate In the 9. Gen. 9.6 Chap. 6. verse where God ordaineth an euerlasting law
against murtherers that he whoe sheddeth the blood of man his blood shal be shedde by man these laste words by man establishing the Magistrats authoritie Baadam are not expressed in your traslation This to be a fault of great importance anie man may easilie vnderstand To proceede a litle further in this firste booke of holie scripture and to discouer some moe grosse corruptions of your latin translation therein committed for I may not stand to note euerie petie fault in the 36. Gen. 36.24 Chap. v. 24. the Prophet writeth that Ana the sonne of Zibeon found mules in the wildernes but your translator telleth vs he found warme waters Haijemim aquas calidas and so by his great cunning hath turned mules into water It maie be said there is great likenes between the wordes in Hebrew which I graunt to be so But this dischargeth not the translation from a faulte And howsoeuer those words are like yet from whence did your translator fetch his other worde Warme For though we suppose the word may signifie water yet to cal it warme water is more then can be warranted In the 41. Chap. v. 54. there passed in the former editions of your translation a notablefault Gen. 41.54 which yet of late for verie shame hath bene amended by Hentenius of Louaine For where the Prophet speaking of the generall famine that was ouer all countries saith that in all the land of Egypt was breade your bookes cleane contrarie to the text and storie reade that the famine also was in all Egypt And thus hath it gone maine hundred yeares in your Latine Bibles Nowe at length you haue bene content to acknowledge a fault in this place and whie not as well also in others wherein as euident faults may be found as this And seeing you can be brought to acknowledgement of some corruptions in your latine Bibles by like reason you maie be induced also to confesse moe faults where moe faults may be founde as there maie full many throughout your whole translation In the 49. of Genes v. 22. Gen. 49.22 Iacob compareth Ioseph his sonne to a fruitfull bough by the well side which wordes in your latine translation are otherwise set downe thus and he is comelie to beholde If you saie that in the sense is no difference yet you make no sufficient answere bhalei bhaijn Et decorus aspectu forasmuch as translating the text of scripture we must retaine the verie words as well as we may and not take libertie of leauing the wordes because we thinke we swarue not from the sense For the wordes may haue some other or farther meaning then we suppose euen in such places as seeme to be most easie And if you impute this as a fault to vs in translating why may not we likewise blame your translator for the same who hath so much offended therein But let vs go on In the 24. verse of this Chap. Iacob saith of Ioseph that his armes were strengthned in your translation it is as contrarie as may be that they were weakned or loosed Againe in the end of this Chapter a wholl verse together is omitted by your tranflators The purchase of the field and the caue that is therein of the children of Heth of which wordes not one is found in your translation and so where the Chapter contained 33. verses your translation hath 32. Tell vs by what reason it was lawful for the author of your translation to put so much our of the text or for you to allow him in so doing It were a worke of great labour and length to go through euerie book of scripture in this order and therfore it shal be for our purpose sufficient of infinite faultes that might be noted booke by booke Chapter by Chapter verse by verse to discouer onelie certaine as they come to my hand such as by reading and conference euerie one may obserue In Exodus the. 15 Chapter 19. verse your translator hath committed a double faulte first in translating a word second in pointing amisse The Prophet saith that Pharoes Horse went with his Charet and Horsemen into the Sea Sus Parbho And so is it in the Septuagintes translation truelie according to the Hebrew veritie But thus it standeth in your translation The Horseman went in Inâ—ressus est eques c. Pharoe with his Charets and Horsemen agreeing neither with Greeke nor Hebrew nor the right sense In the 21. of Exodus 3. verse Exod. 21.3 a law is set downe for hebrew seruants that they should be released of their seruice at the end of six yeares and then is further added in what sorte they should be sent awaie namelie that if the seruant bring with him nothing but his owne bodie Begappo that is if he come alone as the 70. haue interpreted the text hauing no wife then he should go out himselfe alone and not his wife with him as is in the verse following expressed Your translator hath misconstrued the law and marred the sense in turning the hebrew thus Cum quali veste intrauerit cum taliexeat with what manner of garment he entred with such let him go out And so also in the 10. verse following where God commaundeth that if one hath betrothed his maid to his sonne and after take him another wife he shall not diminish the foode of the former your translator hath made aother law for this that he shall prouide a mariage for the maide-seruant Prouidebit puellae nuptias which is vtterlie from the meaning of the law And in the seauenth verse of this Chapter before he hath also mistaken a plaine lawe concerning maide seruants wherein God forbiddeth to send them awaie after their yeares were out haehhabadim as the menseruants are sent away but your translator saith she shall not goe out as the maide seruants are accustomed to goe out Sicut ancillae exere consueuerunt then which nothing almoste can be deuised more contrarie to the Lawe in the. 24. Chapter 11. verse the Prophet speaking of the chosen men of Israel that went vp into the mount and sawe the Lord saith that God laid not his hand vpon them which thing he noteth for a speciall rememberaunce that althouh they sawe God yet because they presumed not but obeied the commaundement of God therefore â—o harme befel vnto them This in your translation is otherwise reported in these wordes Neither laid he his hand vpon them of the children of Isaell that had gone backe a farre of Qui procul recesserant Who seeeth not a manifest difference betweene the true text and this translation In Leuiticus Chap. 4. v. 8. Leuit. 4.8 Where is commaunded that the Priest shall take awaie all the fat of the bullocke that is offered for sinne your translator hath thus mistranslated the wordes and the fat of the calfe he shall offer for sinne Et adipem vituli offeret pro peccato and
we therefore conuaie thus cunninglie into the text of scripture whatsoeuer we imagine fitlie to agree therewith The Hebrew hath no such saying nor the Chaldee nor yet the Greeke it is therefore a manifest corruption of your translator In the first of Kinges 1. Reg. 2.28 the 2. Chap. 28. vers your translator hath notablie falsified the text in putting Salomon once for Ioab and againe by and by for Absolom telling the storie thus And a messenger came to Salomon that Ioab had declined after Adonia and had not declined after Salomon Which is an absurd translation hauing no coherence with the storie and plainlie striuing against the text For thus the words should haue bene translated There came tydinges to Ioab for Ioab had declined after Adonia but had not declined after Absolom He that looketh on the place shall streight espie a foull fault in your translation In the 22. Chap. 26. verse of this booke Filium Amelech Ioas is called by your translator the sonne of Amelech for the Kings sonne by taking the word that signifieth in Hebrewe a King Hammelech for the proper name of a man The booke of Iob is a pretious parte of holie scripture as it hath bene alwaies esteemed in the Church of God and therfore great pitie is it to see the same so miserablie mangled by your translator as any of skill may perceiue it to be if he list to take a litle paines in conferring the true fountaine your translation together In the 1. Chap. v. 21. these words are added to the text Iob. 1.21 As it pleased the Lord so is it come to passe A godlie saying who can denie but that may not excuse your bookes from corruption vnles it can be shewed to be a part of the text which I am sure it cannot In the 3. Chapter and last verse the holy man saith Iob. 3.26 I had no peace I had no quietnes I had no rest yet trouble is come meaning that he liued in continual awe of God looked narroulie to al his waies fearing lest at any time he should prouoke the Lord to bring vpon him some greeuous iudgement and that now notwithstanding this endeuour care trouble miserie was fallen vpon him But your translator hath made him speake otherwise Haue I not dissembled haue I not kept silence Nonne dissimulauâ— c. haue I not bene quiet This translation accordeth not with the wordes and much lesse with the sense In the fift Chap. 5. verse Eliphaz saith Iob. 5. that the hungrie shal eate vp the haruest of the vngodlie and take it from amonge the thornes but in your translation he saith ipsum rapiâ—t armatus the armed man shall take him awaie which is an other thing though it be a true thing And in the verse that followeth v. 6 whereas Eliphaz saith that affliction and miserie commeth not out of the dust your translator hath put an other speach in his mouth Nihil in terâ—â— sine causa fit Nothing is done vpon the earth without a cause Againe in the. 7. verse he saith v. 7 Man is borne to trauaile euen as the sparkes flie vpwarde your translator saith Man is borne to labour and the birde to flie anis ad volatum turning the sparkes which the Hebrewe termeth the sonnes of the coles into a birde In the. 6. Chap. 1. v. Iob wisheth that his griefe were perfectlie weighed Iob. 6.1 your translator hath added hereto wordes of his owne applying a speach to Iob which whether he would acknowledge may well be douted I would my sinnes were waighed wherby I haue deserued wrath v. 16 In the. 16. verse of this Chapter Iob compareth his friends whoe had forsaken him to brookes that passe swiftlie awaie which brookes he saith are blackishe with yce and wherein the snow is hidde Of these wordes your translator hath framed a proper sentence or prouerbe They that feare the yce the snow shal fall vpon them Qui timent pruinaÌ„ â—rruet super eos nix Iob. 9.12 In the 9. Chapter he shewing at large the wonderfull and omnipotent power of God saith in the 12. verse If he take any thing by violence awaie who shall make him restore it againe The author of your translation not marking well the wordes hath turned them thus Si repente ininterroget quis respondebit If he aske suddenlie who shall answere him And in the. 13. Chap. 4. verse where Iob calleth his friends Phisitions of no value your translator nameth them Cultores peruersorum dogmatum Iob. 14.4 embracers of peruerse doctrines In the 4. verse of the. 14. Chap. Iob saith who can bring a cleane thing out of filthines not one your translation hath these wordes who can make a cleane thing that is conceiued of vncleane seed is it not thou whoe art alone In the 31. Chap. of this booke 19. v. he saith Iob. 31.19 Si despexi pretereuntem eô quôd non habuerit indumentum If I haue seene any perish for want of clothing c. which to be the true reading is confessed by your owne Masters and prooued by the Hebrew text But your translation maketh Iob thus to speake If I haue despised him that passed by for because hee had no garment Which wordes carie with them an other sense then the former wil admit And though in your last editions some of your reformers haue in stead of him that passed by placed in the text him that perished yet this salue hath not made the wounde wholl For first you keepe still the worde despising in steade of seeing and further that your vulgare translation ought not to be corrected in that other word as of late it hath bene by whose authoritie and iudgement soeuer may be knowne by Aquinas and Saint Gregorie and many moe whoe in their commentaries vpon this booke haue sett downe the wordes in such sorte as I haue rehearsed out of your translation If this be a fault as you haue graunted in correcting it in some parte then haue your latine Bibles beene faultie this thousand yeares together and if you may now by comparing your vulgare latine with the Hebrew reforme this corruption though it be of so long continuance whie may you not as well in all other places where your translation doth plainely disagree from the Hebrew as it doth in a thousand fyle it and make it as euen as you can with the Authenticall text In the 33. v. 6. Elihu saith to Iob Iob. 33.6 for that he had wished to haue God answere him beholde I wil be according to thy word for God This to be the true meaning the wordes do shew themselues and therfore it was a maruel that your translator would turne them thus Ecce mesicut te fecit Deus Behold euen me hath God made as thee And in the 25. v. where Elihu declaring how God dealeth with his children in punishing them
towards God indued with greater grace and spirit more voide of partialitie and affection then they Otherwise if you compare him with other translators although I knowe herein your iudgement is altogether partiall yet as this reason may aduance him to higher estimation then other translators so must it cast him down as much and more beneath the writers them selues in that they being chosen instruments of God for that purpose were moste plentifullie indued and assisted with al graces of the holie Ghost which can not be auouched of that translator how excellent otherwise soeuer he were Other surmises and geasses of corruptions in the originall texte more then in the translation as they are by you oft repeated by sundry impertinent testimonies of our writers idlelie enlarged so shal they neuer be trulie and substantiallie prooued whereby it might appeere that the latine translation is more to be alowed and esteemed generallie then the Greeke text To oppose some of our new translators against your olde pag. 375. c. were verelie an easie matter but thus should we slippe awaie from the question and fall to other discourses wherin the controuersie lieth not If we should attribute as much learning and diligence to your translator as such a man could haue and vse yet would you confesse I trust he were still far inferior to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists whose writings remaine and are the holy canonicall scriptures of God These writinges do we oppose against your translation and these doe you wickedlie and shamfullie dishonour in preferring the translation of such a man before them This you are not hable either reasonably to defend or colourablie to excuse and therefore you runne another waie as though you chased your enemie whereas feare causeth your felfe to flie All this talke of Erasmus Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Castalion Caluine Beza and their translations is from the purpose We make no such account of anie of them as you doe of yours to allowe and receiue whatsoeuer they haue translated without examining their translations by the text we prefer whome we know to haue dealt in that worke moste faithfullie and if we find by skill and triall some ouersight in the translation as in the best some may be found we cleaue to the originall text of scripture and not after your preposterous manner to the corrupt translation Now of all translations set forth by Protestants of all countries sure I am you cannot shewe any so repugnant to the veritie of the Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines as I can shew and as it hath bene shewed that yours is That Luthers and Bezaes and the other seuerall translations haue bene by some in certaine places reprooued is true But what kinde of argument call you this because some errours haue bene noted in this or that translation therefore to conclude the wholl translation is nought or worse then yours Emserus a papist you say hath gathered out of Luthers translation fourteene hundred foule lies If I saide that this in him were a foule lie I should say truelie Luthers translation hath bene sufficientlie commended and maintained by men of greater wisdome and learning then Emserus That Zuinglius also misliked Luthers translation in some parts and Beza the Basill translation and that of Castalion and Molinaeus Calaines and Bezaes translations which matters are by you at large rehearsed as thouge they made somewhat to purpose I graunte and giue you leaue to make thereof what you can But if this seeme in your iudgement a thing so odious and slanderous to our translatious that thus they haue bene seuerallie charged by some what may we thinke and saie of you that not content to accuse our translations though far better then anie you haue of such impietie dare affirme the originall bookes them selues now extant to be so full of grosse and notorious corruptions which you shall neuer prooue that your vulgar translation knowne to be moste corrupt is purer then they what soeuer hath bene saied by any against our translations is in no respect of like hainousnes to this seeing that not onlie the bookes of scripture were written and set foorth at the first moste purelie but the meanes also haue euermore bene as great to keepe and continue them in the same puritie as anie translation whatsoeuer Your iudgement of our English Bibles is answerable to that spirit where with you are poffessed and of the abundance whereof you write Nothing els they are you saie but corrupt gutters flowing from corrupte and stinking lakes M. R. contumelies against the English translations of the scriptures the best containing wicked horrible and ethnicall errors A slaunder most wicked horrible ethnicall of all men to be detested neuer shal you prooue any word hereof true Gregorie Martine hath labored herein and performed nothing your skill is onelie in open railing other deed of moment can you do none against vs. If you finde faulte with vs for correcting our Bibles shew vs if you can that either it is vnlawfull to translate the Bible into our owne tongue or els after is hath bene translated to reforme the translation in such places wherein some errors haue escaped or to translate it ouer againe No translation of the scripture can at the first be so perfecte and sincere but it may be afterwardes amended as God shall reuele to his Church the faultes thereof Otherwise if it were any fault to amend a fault why hath your Councell of Trident taken order for the correction of your latine translation and for a better edition thereof to be published then heretofore hath bene yea why hath Pope Pius reformed your Psalters Breuiaries Offices and such other bookes as are with you in greatest vse and estimation If this seemed requisite why maie not we looke to our translations like wise amend the imperfefections set forth better But your griefe is that we haue translated the scriptures at all although I trust you will not now condemne the thing plainlie seeing your selues at length haue giuen vs an English translation of the new testament which if you thinke to be so absolute as it shall neuer neede any reformation your iudgement is to be pitied rather then confuted Twoe reasons are alledged pag. 387. whie you maie not translate the new testament after the Greeke The reasons why the Rhemists haue not translated the new testamenâ— according to the greeke first because you thinke your latine Testament to be truer then the common Greeke copies now extant Thus you tell vs what you thinke but reason or proofe of this so absurd a thought haue you none Let me answere you as Saint Ierome answereth Heluidius the heretike in this point Hâ—eron aduer Heluid tibi stultissimè persuasisti Graecos codices esse falsatos Thou hast perswaded thy self most foolishlie that the Greeke bookes of the new testamente are falsified and why may you not as well thinke that the latine testament is corrupt as the Greeke what argument
haue you more for the one then the other But your seconde reason is more absurde wherein you professe that although you had the true originals yet could you not make in these daies a better translation Wherefore could you not the thinge is not harde if you had simple and willing mindes But now may we see by this your protestation that whatsoeuer you speake against the corruption of the originall bookes in respecte where of you will seeme to preferre your common translation before them yet although you had as true originals as euer were or could be wished notwitstanding you woulde still make more account of your translation then of them That wherefoeuer we find faulte with your translation some one of our owne brethren standeth with you in defense of your translation is vntrue I haue shewed examples enowe of grosse and manifest corruptions in the translation of the olde testament which none our brethren as you call them euer went about to excuse Valla Erasmus Beza haue noted manie in your translation of the newe althoug I graunt that both Erasmus doth instlie reprooue Valla and Beza hath worthelie reprooued Erasmus in some places of their reprehensions And so maie it fall out to those that take paines in correcting a booke ful of corruptions as your latine translation is sometime to finde a fault where none is the latter corrector to dissent from the former Your Tridentine decree which you commend being set forth by so manie excellent godlie learned men as you saie were impietie to compare all the scattered synagogues of Lutherans with them hath bene tried and examined by more godlie and learned men then euer were in that synagogue assembled wherein neither godlines nor learning but Antichristian tyrannie preuailed One example I alledged of corruption in your latine Testament pag. 391. c. and that I might haue gathered manie moe is euident by that which hath bene declared before In the 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. these wordes are wanting in your translation when this corruptible hath put on incorruption which yet are found in all greeke copies now extant and were not onelie in the olde greeke testaments as appeereth by S. Chrysostome but also euen in the auncient latine translations thereof and that by your owne coâ—â—ession Hereunto you make long and friuolous answeres by distinctions of points First you saie there is no losse of anie parte of doctrine for the same thing is set downe in the next lines before A proper reason which giueth libertie to scrape out of the scriptures whatsoeuer is in other places repeated Secondlie you adde that some reason you haue to thinke that percel repeated not to be of the text As good haue you to thinke that these wordes when this mortall shall put on immortalitie are not of the text seing they are sett downe in the lines immediatlie going before Thirdlie that it was in some greeke copies as you reade Perhaps so but what then seing doubtles the moste and best read it other wise Fourthlie you thinke more reason to correct Chrysostome by Ierome then Ierome by Chrysostome Yet maie it seeme otherwise to indifferent men that Chrysostome and the Church of Constantinople had as true copies and as great varictie of bookes as Ierome could haue anie For where should Ierome seeke for true and faithfull copies of the new Testament but in the Greeke Church and in which more then in that and whoe liker to haue the truest then Chrysostome I think therefore no man of discretion can otherwise iudge but that it is much more likelie S. Chrysostomes reading to be true then S. Ieromes if they diffent especiallie other latine translations agreing wiht that text which S. Chrysostome followed And Saint Hierome manie times in his Epistles and treatisies reprehendeth the common latine reading The vulgare translation of the new testament reprooued indiuerse places by S. Ierome euen the same that is nowe currant in your latine testaments Whereby maie appeere that the same was not in his iugdement euerie where so entire as you affirme That Saint Chrysostome maketh against vs and approoueth your reading I wonder with what face you could auouch Let anie man read S. Chrysostome in Greeke and if he finde not the text in him set down as our Greeke testaments reade it both in the first and second place I am content to yeald the wholl to Master Rainolds And so likewise readeth Oecumenius this place I graunt S. Ambrose hath it onelie in the first place yet other latine fathers reade it according to the veritie of the Greeke as your selfe confesse which as much as I maintaine Fiftlie you thinke it enough for defense of your translation that the same wordes are added in the margent which is but a poore shift when you haue thrust the text of scripture out of his due and proper seate to giue it some roome in a corner And yet your English translation hath discharged it of that place also and wipte it cleane awaie both out of text and margent That not here onelie pag. 399. c. but in other manifolde places also you keepe the errors of the latine translation contrarie to the trueth of the Greeke copies is a thing that hath bene plentifullie prooued by manie and therefore to saie so was no bragge Aria Montanus how good a priest soeuer he be doubtles is not of your iudgement concerning the Hebrewe and greeke originals of scripture and therefore cannot alowe that wicked decree of the Tridentine Councell wherein the corrupt translation is confirmed and established for the Canonical word of God by general consent commaundement the true originall Canon of scriptures being there reiected and disgraced Now then whether in this and such other respects I had not iust cause to call you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iniurious to the Bible I referre to the iudgement of all godlie and wise readers For what greater iniurie or contumelie can be offered to the holie Bible then not onelie to approoue a translation that is full of corruptions in all partes thereof for the authenticall Bible and word of god but also to cast away the originall Bible it selfe as corrupte and to giue no further credit vnto it then it agreeth with your translation And therefore that you malitiouslie auouch of vs that we haue no Bibles maie moste truelie be saide of you that you haue willinglie refused the fountaines of Gods moste pure and blessed word and haue not amongst you in publike regarde and authoritie the true Bibles indeed which you haue wickedlie both contemned and condemned Your repetitions to the end of this Chapter full of outragious vntruthes and slaunders require no answere in this place you haue bene fullie answered before and the wholl world can testifie to Gods glorie and your confusion that not one tittle of Gods worde and scriptures is by vs denied CHAP. 14. Wherin Master R. laboreth to prooue that it is the verie waie to Atheisme and infidelitie
the English with the latine and all is right For he affirmeth and by some vnfitt examples would prooue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to defend and Defendo signifieth to reuenge alledging also some Dictionaries for his opinion But to make a short replie let M. R. bring vs foorth any one example out of good author Greeke or Latine wherein the wordes are so vsed as he teacheth then shal we easilie yeald in this case By implication and consequence I graunt the one word maie perhaps be vsed sometime for the other but I appeale to all learned Grecians and Latinists in the worlde whether it be not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properlie signifieth onelie to reuenge and not to defend and so likewise Defendo to defend and not to reuenge Therefore to translate the one for the other as it is altogether vnproper so is it moste daungerous in the scriptures because thereof may followe errors in iudgement and practise of life And it appeereth that Thomas of Aquine tooke the word Defendentes in the proper signification expounding it by Christs precept that if we be striken on the one cheeke we must be so farre of from defending our selues that we must be willing rather to turne the other also to him that smote vs and by Christs example who being buffeted on the face defended not him selfe Yet after he sheweth that some defense is lawfull by example of Saint Paule who procured him selfe to be defended from the Iewes that laie in waite for him Thus we maie see that your Saint Thomas vsed the worde simplie and properlie and thereby was faine to seeke some newe exposition which he nedd not to haue done had he bene as good a grammarian as you Master Rainolds are The other example is in S. Matthewe pag. 470. c. the 4. Chapter 16. verse wherein you haue also followed the Greeke rather then the latine translating not according to moste of your latine Testaments which I haue seene the people that walked in darknes but after the Greeke the people that sat in darknes A small matter in it felfe I graunt yet great enough to shew that you haue not so preciselie followed the latine translation as you would seeme which also in other places appeereth by comparing your translation with that For in the verie first Chapter of S. Matthew the 19. ver you haue omitted these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir cius Her husband which your latine bookes haue truelie translated according to the greeke Wherof reason it were that you should be accountable for what cause you haue remooued those wordes cleane out of the text if they were not rather left out by ouersight For I trust you are not ashamed that Ioseph should be called the husband of the blessed virgine Marie Againe in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9. instauratur you translate is comprised by no grammar I am sure nor dictionary I think The sense I graunt is true and well agreeth with the Greeke but the latine worde is left If you listed not to translate is renewed or repared as the word signifieth you might haue kept the worde and according to your new found manner of translating and speaking haue translated instaurated Such examples are there in your translation manie moe if we should peruse the wholl which is not necessarie Neither haue I much blamed your translation in this respect Master Rainolds for not iumping alwaies with your latine as you haue vntruelie tould your reader but for leauing the Greeke and following the latine translating onely a bare I wil not speake as you doe a bald translation and for translating it after such a fashion as neuer scripture was translated nor any other booke I suppose and for applying the text moste absurdlie and violentlie to some colourable maintenance of your Antichristian Church and religion CHAP. 16. Of the faults found in the Annotations of the new testament FRom the translation which how vaine and childish it is hath bene declared now let vs proceed with you to the Annotations which are meet handmaides for such a maistres But before you come to speake of the particular faults that were found therein you discourse of many matters according to your common custome idlely and railingly whereunto it booteth not to make answere and therefore passing ouer what you haue written of M. Iewell M. Horne c. of Tower and Tiburne disputation of the Churches stabilitie of M. Foxes monuments of Luthers iudgement concerning the sacramentaries I will come to examine your defense of those faults that were noted and that as brieflie as I can reserning these causes to the large confutation of those Annotations which in conuenient time through Gods goodnes wil be I hope performed to Gods glorie defense of the trueth and disproofe of popishlies and heresies Three kindes of faults were obserued the first of errours in matters historicall the second of false conclusions and arguments the third of certaine blaspemies against the holie Apostle In the first order were reckened certaine traditions pag. 484. c. which hauing no ground in Gods word nor much differing from mere fables are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriouslie auouched as behouefull for all Christians to beleeue And first of the wisemen that came from the East to visite our sauiour Christ three things are affirmed first that they were kings secondlie that they were three Popish traditions full of fables and vanities and lastlie that their names were Gaspar Melchior and Baltasar as now commonlie they are called For the first Master R. demaundeth a reason why I should thinke they were no kinges himselfe not hable to shew any why he should saie they were kings But if reason may rule him for which he calleth as though he would yeelde vnto it if it were giuen him three reasons will I propounde wherebie I am mooued not to beleeue that these men were kings First because the Euangelist calleth them by noe such names The wise me that came to worshippe Christ said to be kinges against reason which yet he would not haue omitted if the truth had bene according to your tradition considering how this would haue made for the honour of Christ that so soone as he was borne kings should haue sought him far and done vnto him homage and worship And when you maintaine your opinion by this argument for that it is honorable to the person of our sauiour Christ that so we should thinke of them you charge therein the holy Euangelist for omitting somewhat that might haue greatlie aduanced the honor of Christ if he had truelie and fullie reported the same Secondlie it is not credible that Herods would haue admitted into his kingdome and chiefe Citie three Kings with their troupes especiallie there being enemity betwixt him and the kinges of Persia neither could they haue so secretlie come to our sauiour Christ and escaped out of the countrie againe but that being kings and therefore
imagined presence of Christs bodie in the sacrament which being graunted according to your doctrine of transsubstantiation inferreth moste necessarilie that Christs bodie at once is both compassed in a litle bread which is contrarie to the nature of a mans true bodie and also is not compassed therein as sitting in heauen and hauing the naturall properties of a true bodie which cannot be brought within so narrowe a compasse as is your wafer cake This is repugnant to scripture to reason to Gods ordinaunce and therefore a moste absurde and impossible thing is it that Christs bodie should remaine a true naturall bodie and yet at once be contained in so small a compasse as you teach In that Christ and Peter walked on the water no such inconuenience nor absurditie can be found whether the waters were made by miracle firme as the ground or the bodies were sustained by Gods power that they suncke not Christ might beare vp him-selfe and Peter from sincking downe by his diuine power and chaunge no naturall propertie of his or Peters bodie but Christs bodie can not be brought into that slender compasse of your mathematicall cake without destruction of all properties incident vnto a natural body So then betweene these two is no likenes at all as any man not blinded with Popish folly and not wilfullie shutting his eyes against the cleare light may manifestlie perceiue Wherefore distrusting this argument you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon as in the authoritie of Epiphanius whoe hath not anie worde at all to this purpose For tell vs Master Rainolds doth Epiphanius drawe an argumente from Christs walking on the water to prooue his bodie reallie present in the sacramentall bread No such matter can you finde in Epiphanius or any auncient father of Christs Church That which Christ hath said he that beleeueth not to be true is fallen from grace and saluation as Epiphanius writeth but Christ hath neuer said that his bodie should be in the compasse of a litle bread Howbeit what talke you of a litle bread when you teach no bread at all remaineth but onelie signes and shadowes of bread False is your doctrine and foolish is your argument but bad reasons are good enoughe for such a bad religion Of Peters walking on the water pag. 498 is gathered an other argument of like qualitie to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie which argument was first inuented and deuised by Saint Bernarde in his second booke and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope Manie waters are many people Peter walked on the waters therefore Peter and his successors are rulers ouer manie people saith good Saint Bernarde to whome your Pope is greatlie bound for deuising such a fine argument which no auncient Doctor was able to finde But must we now receiue Bernards phantasies for substantiall proofes of the papall supremacie No Master Rainolds Saint Bernarde hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tiranny which in those daies was established Your comparison of this argument with that of Christs about the brasen serpent and of Pauls concerning Isaac and Ismael is no better then blasphemous Might Saint Bernarde with like authoritie reason thus Peter walked on the waters therefore he and his successors are supreme gouernours of the vniuersall Church as Christ did shew the manner of his death by the lifting vp of the brasen serpent in the desert or as Saint Paul did prooue the haued and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians by example of Ismael and Isaac Had Bernard the fullnes of wisdome and trueth that was in Christ was Bernard alwaies directed with that spirit wherewith Saint Paul expounded the scriptures of God Here we may see how baselie you thinke of Gods word to match therewith mens seelie expositions and applications such as Saint Bernards often times were and this moste notablie is An argument is gathered for workes of supererogation pag. 499. out of the Samaritanes wordes whatsoeuer thou shalt bestow more or as it is by them translated Luc. 10.35 whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This argument saith Master Rainolds followeth wel enough and is Saint Augustins conclusion to prooue that Saint Paul did supererogate when he might haue receiued all duties for preaching the Gospell but would not That men may remit some part of their due and doe more towardes men outwardlie then they can of necessitie be vrged to doe no man will denie and thus may one man be said to supererogate towards another but what maketh this for workes of supererogation towards God whoe requireth both inward and outward obedience of vs in moste absolute manner For reall presence a like argument to the first is gathered of Christs transfiguration Pag. 499. whereof yet Master Rainolds being ashamed saith it is not their argument Matt. 17. â— but onelie a deduction that Christ maie giue vs his bodie in forme of bread and wine A proper deduction no doubt of a glorious bodie to prooue no bodie That Saints can heare and helpe vs euerie where pag. 500. because they are like to Angels is a verie bad argument Mat. 22.30 considering that neither Angels can so do for then were they of equall power with God and though Saints are like to Angels as in other things so in this that they marrie not yet it followeth not that therefore they are equall to Angels You are glad of such arguments hauing no other but if ye had better ye would not esteeme such Ioseph wrapped Christs bodie in sindon pag. 501. Therefore Christs bodie on the altar must be laid in pure linnen Mat. 27.59 In this argument Master Rainolds cannot tell what I mislike whether the reall presence or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other I answere in a worde I mislike all there being no trueth in anie of all The women came to beholde the sepulcher pag. 502. Ergo we must goe to the holie sepulcher in pilgrimage Matt 28.1 This argument Master Rainolds confesseth cannot indeede prooue that we must but that we maie goe in pilgrimage by example of those godlie and zealous women which yet is a false and fond deduction seing there is no such like cause for vs to goe as was for them That Christ appeered to the twoe disciples in another forme pag. 504. cannot prooue that he is in the sacrament in forme of bread Mark 16.12 for somuch as in Christs bodie noe alteration at this time was wrought but onelie the disciples eies were helde that they know him not as Saint Luke expreslie noteth Luk. 34.16 For your exorcisme in baptisme argument you saie you made none of Christes saying to the dombe and dease Ephpheta Mat. 7.34 If no argument no proofe if no proofe then no cause to vse by example of Christ such exorcisme in you baptismes pag. 505. Luk. 1.3