the Bible For proofe whereof Luther is charged to haue written contemptuouslie and contumeliouslie of the Epistle of Saint Iames which though it had beene true and could not haue beene denied yet did it nothing at all touch vs who therein agree not with Luther neither are bound to iustifie al his sayings priuat opinions no more then they wil be content to auouch what-soeuer hath beene spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their side We no more bound to defend Luther in all his sayings then they will be bound to defend whatsoeuer hath bin said by their writers Which thing if they will take vppon them to performe then let them professe it or els they offer vs the more iniurie that obiect still against vs a saying which was neuer either vttered or alowed by vs. This might suffice men of indifferent reason but our aduersaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing and will trouble the world with friuolous writings being neither ashamed nor wearied of any thing For what matter is it worthie soe much adoe and soe many wordes whether Luther euer spake so of Saint Iames epistle as Campian sayth he did or no If he had so spoken as in trueth he hath not for any thing I can vnderstand what haue they wonne what haue we lost what matter was it to multiplie words so much about Is this the controuersie between vs and them doe we striue about mens words and writings Is Luther our God or the author of our faith or our Apostle No they shall not bring vs thus from the defense of Gods trueth to skirmish with them about mens sayings we will not leaue the great questions of Religion and fall to dispute about matters of other nature condition such as this is concerning Luthers particuler iudgement of S. Iames Epistle The truth of Gods word is it for which we contend against the which if anie man haue spoken any thing let him beare the blame himselfe and let not the common cause be charged therewith So if Luther or anie other learned man of our side haue eyther interpreted the scriptures in something amisse or haue doubted of some one booke of Scripture whereof doubte also hath beene of olde in the Church of Christ we are not to defend their expositions or to approoue their iudgement and therefore in vaine do these men spend so much time and take such paynes to prooue that Luther vttered reprochfull wordes against the Epistle of Saint Iames which as though it had beene a principall matter for their aduantage not onelie the Censurer in his defense and Gregorie Martin in his discouerie haue spoken thereof but now also my new aduersarie Master Rainolds in his booke against me beginneth with the same and sayth he hath thought good to sett it downe and prosequute it somewhat more at large But I for my parte haue not thought good to spend my time and comber the reader about such vnnecessarie and impertinent discourses as these are which the aduersaries deuise and wherewith Master Rainolds hath stuffed his booke onely it shal be sufficient for answere to Master Rainolds whoe in trueth deserueth no answere playnlie and briefelie in euerie point to cleare the trueth from his cauils and slaunders for the satisfying of the godlie in this behalfe And first what a sillie argument he gathereth M. Rainolds argum that we haue left no ground of faith because Luther somwhat toucheth the credit of Saint Iames epistle for that Luther hath written somewhat hardlie of Saint Iames his Epistle that therefore the Protestants leue no one ground whereupon a Christian man may rest his faith I trust anie man of mean discretion can easilie perceiue For the iniurie done to Saint Iames Epistle by Luther should not be obiected against the Church of England which doth receiue the same as the Canonicall word of God but against Luther if he did so deserue and such as maintayne Luthers opinion herein But neither I nor any other that I knowe in our Church euer denied much lesse doth the whole Church denie that epistle to be worthely rekned among the bookes of sacred Scripture S. Iames Epistle not doubted of in the Church of England nor haue taken vpon vs to defend either Luther or any other for reiecting the same Indeed because Campian rayled vpon Luther charging him to haue disgraced that epistle with despitefull tearmes I answered that Luther had not so written of it as Campian affirmed which still I may truely holde for anie thing hath bene shewed either by any other or by Master Rainolds him selfe whoe like a profound scholler handleth this worthie matter thus at large Furthermore how doth that followe Maister Rainolds that if Luther thought Saint Iames epistle not to be Canonicall or equall in Authoritie with the epistles of Saint Paull and Peter that therefore he left no ground for a Christian mans faith to stay vppon are all the grounds of our fayth in Saint Iames epistle is all foundation of Religion ouerthrowne yf Saint Iames epistle should not be Canonicall Doe they that deny or doubt of that epistle destroy the credit of all other bookes of holie scipture God forbid that so we should thinke Diuers auncient learned men and Churches haue denyed the Epistle of S. Iames. Amongst the Auncient writers of estimation Eusebius calleth this same epistle of Saint Iames about which you make soe great adoe in playne wordes a Bastard I thinke you will not say that Luther hath written worse or more against it Euseb lib. 2. ca. 23. Ieron in catal And Saint Ierome saith It was affirmed that this epistle was published by some other vnder the name of Saint Iames whereby appeereth that many Christians in auncient tyme thought it to be in deede counterfait and yet did they not therefore ouerthrow al the foundations of our fayth Euseb lib. 7. ca. 25. Dionysius Alexandrinus writeth as Eusebius reporteth that many of his predecessours vtterly refused and reiected the booke of Reuelation Concil Laod. cap. 59. Iunil lib. 1. cap. 3. And so doth the Councell of Laodicea leue the same out of the number of Canonicall bookes Iunilius Africanus an auncient father reiecteth not only the bookes of Iudith Hester and Maccabees as they are worthy in that they are not canonicall but also of Iob Ezra and Paralipomenon which notwithstanding are canonical scriptures And neuerthelesse for al this they left some staie for Christians in the other bookes of Scripture wherein a man may finde sufficient ground to build his faith vpon Yea Ierome was not afraid to discredit the trueth of the historie written in holie Scripture concerning Dauids marrying with Abisag calling it according to the letter that is the true and natural sense Hier. epist 2. Vel. figmentū esse de mimo vel Atellanarum ludicra no better then either a poetical fiction or vnseemely iest and therefore deuiseth a proper Allegorie of Wisdome which cherisheth
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
speake and thy selfe considering the matter aduisedlie wilt saie as much For in making an olde rotten translation as I may boldlie call it being compared with the originall word of scripture although otherwise I giue to it that reuerence that the antiquity therof deserueth full of wants faultes errors ouersightes imperfections and corruptions of all sortes as in this booke hereafter god willing thou shalt perceaue to be the authenticall word of God and denying the originall faithfull text which Moses the Prophets the Apostles the Euangelists did write to be the worde of God what do they els but plainlie as it were with one dash of a penne cancel the wholl sciptures Herein maiest thou see what conscience these men make of scripture that do cast awaie the verie authenticall text and bookes of holie scripture preferring before them a homelie latine translation which besides it is such as I haue said no man can tell from whence or from whome it came And this forsooth is their scripture coined and canonized of late in the councell of Trente and neuer before and other scripture haue they none Hitherto Master Rainolds treatise hath bene generall of the English Protestants pag. 41. c. now he craueth leaue of the reader to descend and applie the same to his aduersarie whose booke he is to examine and first he noteth the fashion of Heretikes alwaies to haue bene to inuade the chiefe pastours of the Church What heretikes haue vsed commonlie to doe appertaineth nothing vnto vs we could no otherwise doe but when we espied the wolfe deuouring the flocke and Antichrist sitting in the temple of God giue warning thereof to all crie out against him and call him by his proper name the verie Antichrist of whom Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in other places doe mean This hath bene the iudgement of al reformed Churches from the beginning and wil be to the ending of the world And although Sanders hath taken great paines in this behalfe to prooue their Pope to be no Antichrist for then all were vtterlie lost yet how little he hath by his demonstrations preuailed the godlie reader maie easilie iudge by the answere set forth which Master Rainolds because he cannot orderlie and thorowlie disprooue carpeth at some partes thereof in the residue of this his preface But being appointed as he saith to answere the booke it had bene more for his commendation and credite of the cause to haue perticularlie refuted my wholl replie then thus to pike certaine parcels at his owne choise and to pretermit all the rest Yet let vs see what he can saie whereby it shall appeere how litle he had to saie In the first demonstration of all Pag. 44. c. D. Saunders endeuoureth to proue that the great Antichrist must be one singular man for proofe whereof he allegeth sundrie reasons which are seuerallie answered and lastlie as the chiefest that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man Doctor Saunders and parcel of my answere are here by Master Rainolds repeated but the principall ground thereof is omitted Whereas it is by Saunders affirmed that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one onelie man although this be vntrue and can neuer by Saunders or anie Papist be prooued and although further it is one thing to speake of Antichrist as of one man and plainlie to saie that Antichrist is one man yet supposing this were true that Saunders meaneth notwithstanding his demonstration holdeth not being taken from the authoritie of men from whome no demonstration in diuinitie can be drawen This is the summe of this answere which Master Rainolds accuseth of Antichristian arrogancie seing the fathers write according to the apostolicall faith and tradition as he saith But how may it appeere Master Rainolds that the Apostles taught or deliuered such a faith vnto the Churches concerning Antichrist if this faith be contained in their writings tell vs in what booke in what place in what wordes If in secret tradition we admit no profe as you know from such vncertaine and blinde traditions And if you your selues oftentimes doe dissent from the fathers giue vs also the same libertie of dissenting from them vpon as good ground and iust causes as you haue anie The fathers speake diuerse times not according to the tradition faith Apostolicall but according to the common receiued opinion them selues in plain termes confessing that they speake but coniecturally if there was not in that age so full and cleare knowledge of Antichrist as at this daie no maruell maie it seeme to wise men for so much as nowe Antichrist is not onelie borne and bredde but growne to a strong man and perfectlie discerned and acknowledged by all marks essentiall to be Antichrist They forsawe him we see him they knew he should come we know he is come they feared him we haue felt him they geassed at him we can point him out with our finger finallie they might be deceiued but wee cannot vnles we will stop our eares and close our eies and suffer our selues willinglie to be abused pag. 46. c. In the second demonstration Doctor Saunders commendeth the Church of Rome by testimonies of writers auncient and later thereby to make vs beleeue that seing it hath bene so highlie praised it cannot therefore possiblie be the seate of Antichrist Here I gaue Doctor Saunders a distinction betwene the elder Romane Church and the yonger The auncient Church of Rome indeede was worthelie extolled and magnified of the fathers for constant keeping of the faith although euen then in that Church the egge was laide whereof shortlie after Antichrist was hatched the distinction M. R. raileth at with all his mighte but cannot disprooue with all his learning it being euident in al histories that after the daies of those godly fathers the Bishop of Rome was made head of the vniuersal Church wherein he was publikely proclaimed to be the Antichrist that should come afterward continually both religion learning and good life died by litle and litle in that Church as hath bene testified and complained of by infinite writers So the difference betweene that Church in former latter time is no lesse euident then betweene a mans youth and doting age if you consider all partes and properties of a true Church And yet saith Master Rainolds if it be lawfull thus to answere then shall no heresie euer be repressed forgetting fowlie that heresie must be refuted and repressed by scripture which neuer changeth but abideth for euer though Churches varie both from others and from themselues In the third demonstration Pag. 50. c. wherein Saunders affirmeth the succession of priests in the Romane Church to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile I denie the outwarde chaire or succession of bishops to be the immoueable inuincible Rocke wheron the Church is builded which is the sonne of God himselfe the onelie foundation
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
Thirdlie you descant vpon Bene habet It is well pa. 30. but so simplie and fondlie that euerie one may see you are a trifler It is well I said that Campian could not charge Luther for denying a booke which neuer anie Church denied but for denying such a one as had beene heretofore by some Churches denied And although I seeke not herein to defende either Luther or those auncient Churches that refused the same yet is Luthers offence not so hainous as it should haue bene if this had first proceeded of him-selfe without example of other Churches If you will burthen vs with refusall of S. Luke his Gospell the knowne trueth wil easilie acquit vs of that accusation But nothing can be so falslie surmized that you will not finde in your heartes to burthen vs withall As for Atheisme I doubte not but your owne conscience doth tell you our doctrine is farre from it which when you forsooke I wil not saie how neere you approched to Atheisme in yealding to the strawne opinions at Rome but I am assured you went from Christ to followe Antichrist and of a minister of the Gospel became an open enemie of the Gospel If you repent not it had bin better for you neuer to haue bene borne Those forefathers of whome I spake haue giuen such a blowe to your great fathers of Rome pag. 13.32 as you and your companions shall not be hable to heale his wound And though he liue still and breath yet is he scarse hable to stand on his feete and carieth vpon him that marke that shall dailie more and more discouer him to the Saints of God Aerius Vigilantius Iouinianus if they taught anie thing against the trueth of Gods word let them be esteemed as they deserue We laie the grounds of our religion not vpon the writings or opinions of men be they good or badde learned or vnlearned Catholikes or Heretikes but vpon the written word of the eternall God and therefore we praie not as you doe nor offer sacrifice for the dead we worship not nor inuocate Saints we thinke the honourable estate of mariage is pleasing to the Lord as well as single life For thus haue the Prophets the Apostles the Lord him-selfe taught vs As for Marcion Cerdon the rest we abhorre them with all their damnable herisies because the word of God condemneth them the more is your fault in saying they are our fathers But you haue drawen since your departure so hard a skin ouer your conscience Foule vntrueths affirmed of vs by M. R. as you feare not to vtter anie vntrueth be it neuer so desperate You say we matche S. Luke and the Apocalyps with the booke of Iudith and that we saie most plainlie we are not bound to admit those and all the forenamed bookes but may refuse them which for shame of the world you would neuer haue written but that like an Atheist your pen is a readie instrument to publish anie vntrueth The booke of Iudith in dede admit we not and that is no blasphemie prooue it if you can But what should I require you M. Rainolds to prooue anie thing that haue taken vppon you to saie al things and prooue nothing You reason as if you had made a fraie with reason Pag. 33.34 that we are like those olde brutish heretikes called Alogi who denied the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn because we saie we know as certainelie the scriptures to be scriptures and euerie booke thereof as we know the sunne to be the sunne which is as contrarie to those Alogi as the light is to darkenes But who euer doubted of the sunne you saie that it is the sunne of Saint Iames epistle Luther doubteth and the Lutherans wherfore you saie I condemne them for the veriest sottes that euer liued Not so Master Rainolds if you could see For though we are as fullie persuaded of the one as of the other yet doth it not follow that the clearnes of this truth appeereth alike vnto all We must be persuaded assurede of many things that are not seene no lesse then of those things that we see with our eies but to such onelie as it is reueiled vnto Know you not as vndoubtedly there is a God as you know there is a sunne If not to you yet to all Godlie the knowledge of the one is no lesse certaine then of the other though we cannot beholde god with our eies as we may seethe sunne Wil you then conclude that al are stocks and stones which cannot perceiue this so cleare and euident a trueth Doe not your selues thinke all those bookes for which you contend with vs to be as truelie canonicall as that the sunne shineth you will not I am sure say otherwise Doe you then besides an infinite number of auncient writers condemne those of your side for stockes and sottes that denied them To omit the rest of whome I spake before Sixt. biblioth lib. l. Driedo de Catal serip li. 1. c. 4. ad difficult 11. was Sixtus Senensis a sotte for denying your bookes of Hester was Dryedo a sotte for denying Baruch Thus must it be or els your argument is too childish I will not saie sottish Here is brought an argument for Traditions such a one as M. R. diuinitie could afford Pag. 35. It cannot he saith be prooued by scriptures that S. Mat. S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn his gospell S. Paules Ep. are Canonical scripture that is penned by diuine inspiration then we must beleeue some what which by scripture cannot be prooued so tradition is established I would your other traditions were of this sorte then should we sooner agree But betweene this and the rest of your infinite traditions there is no likenes For this is grounded vpon the word written the rest haue no footing on that ground Although it is not expreslie set downe in thus many words S. Matthewes gospell is Canonicall How we knowe the gospell of S. Matthew S. Marke c. to be canonicall scriptures so likewise of the rest yet that we cannot otherwise come to the certain knowledge beliefe thereof but by reporte is a vaine foolish phantasie For the historie it selfe and doctrine therein contained doe plainlie shewe conuince the booke to be Canonical that is written by diuine inspiration so as although the Churches commendation and testimonie of it may confirme our iudgement in beleeuing the same yet our faith is builded vpon the written word it selfe And so your other argument falleth of faith by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 For when we heare the doctrine of these bookes preached vnto vs we beleeue the same in euerie point whereof it must needs follow that the bookes are Canonicall containing so heauenlie and spirituall doctrine as the like can not be written of anie but the spirit of God onelie so being enforced to alowe and imbrace by faith the doctrine of those bookes how can we but
much rather against it For of this it plainlie appeareth at the first to euerie one that in S. Ieromes daies the vulgar translations were greatlie corrupted and that S. Ierome reformed the same by the Hebrew and Greeke text In S. Ieromes daies the Hebrewe and Greeke text acknowledged more sincere then all translations which argueth that the text was in those daies generallie without contradiction acknowledged to be purer then all translations whatsoeuer Then if such corruption crept into the Hebrewe and Greeke texte as you affirme it was after S. Ieromes daies but when in what manner you cannot tell Againe that you saie this edition of S. Ierome was by Damasus supreame authoritie commended to the Church maie easilie be disprooued or if he laboured to haue it in the Latine Churches receiued yet could he not bring it to passe Ieromes translation not especiallie vsed in the Roman Church for two hundred yeares after Ierome Greg. in epist ad Leand. For both other Churches vsed it not and in the Church of Rome it was not in anie singular estimation for the space of two hundred yeares after S. Ierome and Damasus as we may vnderstand by S. Gregorie whoe writeth that in his daies the Romane Church vsed two translations an old and a new This newe is the same which now is called the olde The name of High Priest if you thinke it maketh anie thing for the Popes supreame authoritie you are abused through your owne ignorance It was a name belonging as well to euerie Bishop especiallie of the chiefe Churches as to Damasus But of such speaches you can be content to take aduantage to the abusing of the simple Foure thinges doe you propound to your selfe to prooue concerning your vulgar translation First that I haue saide nothing to purpose against it Second that it is purer then the fountaines Third that although it hath some small faults yet absolutelie it hath no errour touching either doctrine or manners Last that to refuse it and appeale to the Greeke and Hebrewe is the highe waie to deniall of all faith to Apostasie and Atheisme These thinges Master Rainolds hath thus deuided not amisse now let vs examine his proofes of these points for performance of his promise First you saie that in commending the fountaines so much pag. 297. I have spoken nothing against you but rather much and all against my selfe If you can make your saying good herein we shall haue cause much to commend your witt and learning The reason that you haue brought is by you vttered in these words following For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Ierome and S. Ambrose and the Church then troubled with great diuersitie of their Latine Bibles reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals and we now finde those fountaines and originals differing from that reformed bible whie shall we not conclude that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted And what cause haue you thus to conclude where haue you learned to make such conclusions thinke you that this conclusion is ought worth Let vs waie it a litle together Master Rainolds and then shall we better esteeme the value of it First you graunt the fountains were pure in S. Ierome and S. Ambrose daies the translations corrupt Doubtles it greeueth you to confesse thus much but the necessitie of confessing the same enforced you Then foure hundred yeares after Christ by M. Rainolds confession the fountaines of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte were pure The fountaines of the Hebrew and Greeke text pure for the space of four hundred yeares after Christ by the aduersaries confession and all translations were reformed by them Now let vs knowe some certentie of the great alteration that followed What cause was there that the fountaines and originals remained pure so long and then after began to be so shamefullie and vniuersallie corrupted Againe what was the cause that the latine translations were so greatly corrupted for so long a space and neuer since could be corrupted Tell vs some truth shewe some reason alledge your authorities speake to purpose and leaue these vntoward presumptions The same meanes that kept the text pure all that while whie might it not continew in times following if you laie the fault of corrupting the fountaines vpon the Iewes as you doe were there no Iewes in the world for the space of foure hundred yeares after Christ or were they either vnwilling or vnable to attempt such a matter it cannot be denied but that within the compasse of those yeares the Iewes had as great opportunities and greater to haue performed so wicked an enterprise then since that time can be deuised Their malice against Christian religion was no lesse then the number of their learned Rabbines was as great then the troubles of the Church of Christ by reason of the great and general persecutions gaue better occasion to them then therefore if this corruption hath thus mightilie preuailed in the text may it please you to enforme vs how and when it began which request ought not in anie wise seeme vnreasonable vnto you For if you maie demaund of vs the time wherein corruption beganne to enter into the Church and otherwise wil not beleeue vs that there is anie in the Church may not we likewise require of you by as good reason what time this foule corruption wherof you speake first began to sease vpon the texte of scripture and if you cannot tell how may you looke to be herein beleeued The Iewes must be charged for all and the hatred which the Iewes beare to our religion must be an argument that now all is corrupted in the Hebrew Saint Ierome saide he was ashamed to see the Christians thus vnworthily and vntrulie charge the Hebrew veritie with corruption Hâ—eron in c. 17. Ierem. And so may we also trulie saie that it is a shame for these men to slaunder the Hebrew texte and to accuse the Iewes of that fault whereof they are not guiltie for ought that can be prooued in this behalfe against them August de civit Dei lib. 15. cap. 13. And S. Augustine entreating at large of a place read otherwise in the Greeke and Latine translations then in the Hebrew text not onelie dischargeth the Iewes from all suspicion of corrupting their bookes but giueth this rule that whensoeuer there is found any variety or difference in the texts we should geue greatest credit to that tongue out of which the interpreters haue made their translation Vpon which place Lewes Viues writeth thus Ludou Viues ibid. This same doth Ierome auouch and this reason it selfe teacheth there is none of sound iudgement that thinketh otherwise But in vaine doth the consent of good witts thus thinke For stout senslesnes as it were an hil is opposed against it not because these men are ignorant of those tongues for Augustine knew not the Hebrew the Greeke but meanlie but there is not in
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
Saint Lukes preface before his gospell cannot by anie meanes excuse the second booke of Machabees from being Apocryphall wherein the Author craueth pardon for his so slender writing of that historie There is no likenes of comparison at all betweene the Euangelists endeauour to learne and write the certaine truth and that authors confession of his infirmitie and imperfection in writing his booke One thing it is to enquire the truth with all diligence and so hauing found the same to set it forth in writing moste exactlie an other hauing written a booke to desire the readers fauour and forgiuenes in respect of the writers simplicitie and vnskillfulnes The first detracteth nothing from the wisdome maiesty of Gods spirit to search the truâ—h by all such meanes as by which the same maie be learned the other argueth a conscience acknowledgement of wants in writing which cannot be applied to the holie Ghost whoe whatsoeuer he taketh in hand moste wiselie and excellentlie performeth the same Doth Saint Luke anie where excuse his want of vtterance his rude slender and vnlearned manner of writing Nothing lesse nay he protesteth in the same preface that he hath attained to the exacte knowledge of euerie thing and that he writeth a moste certaine and vndoubted trueth so farre of is he from crauing pardon of anie man which the simple writer of that booke of Machabees in regard of his owne weaknes and vnhabilitie thought it expedient for him to doe Your places out of the Apostle are friuolous bewraying your grosse ignorance S. Paul saith that in some part he had written boldelie to the Romanes 〈…〉 15. What then did he therefore craue pardon for his so bolde writing vnto them Doth he not shew immediatlie the cause of this boldnes to be for that he was a minister of Iesus Christ among the gentiles That he faith he was conuersant among the Corinthians in weakenes in feare and trembling 1. Cor. 2.3 what concerneth this the writings that he published to the Church The greatnes of the Lords worke in hand made him to tremble but for his writings he feared not the iudgement of man nor euer submitted them to mans discretion That he desireth them to beare with his follie c. 2. Co. 11.1.17 he speaketh not to excuse anie follie in him selfe who had alwaies moste wiselie and grauelie behaued himselfe towards the Corinthians but to reprooue rather the singular arrogancie and follie of the false Apostles whoe being in no respecte comparable to the Apostle yet bragged immoderatlie and preferred themselues before him This is another case Master Rainolds vnlike to that whereof we spake Men of good will pag. 505. Luc. 2.14 to whome the Angell wisheth well are by our newe diuines of Rhemes expounded for men indued with free will And thus saith Master Rainolds was it taught in the old gospell But what gospell he meaneth it were a good thing to vnderstand For S. Lukes gospell teacheth no such thing which yet sure I am is the olde and true gospell of Christ E ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde S. Luke in that place hath vsed neuer signifieth free will but fauour and good wil which one beareth towards another S. Augustine was by ignorance of the Greeke tongue deceiued and anie man maie soone perceiue that the Angell speaketh of Gods loue towards mankind which then moste notablie appeered when the Sonne of God was borne of a woman For our papists to gather hereof mans free will is too childish and absurde abuse of holie scripture Christ preached out of Peters shippe Luc. 5.3 and therefore our Rhemists make an argument that the wholl Church is Peters shipp If such allegories may goe for sound proofes then will it be easie not onlie for the Pope to prooue his primacie but for all other heretikes that euer were to iustifie their detestable opinions what-soeuer That by Peters ship the fathers haue taught the Church of Christ to be resembled no man denieth but they conclude not nor applie their allegorie so far as you doe to prooue that as Peter was owner of that ship so he and his successors are gouernours of the wholl Church Such allegories as this of yours may please fooles in their merie conceits but wise men will esteeme them no better then they deserue Barnabas laid downe the price of his land at the Apostles feete pag. 510. Act 4.37 where upon our Rhemists make a long annotation of reuerence due to sacred persons either Prophets Apostles or Popes Whoe can otherwise thinke but that hereof they meant to make an argumente for kissing of the Popes feet least anie thing concerning the Pope should want due confirmation yet Master Rainolds calleth this and the rest merie conclusions and complaineth of mockers Indeed such merie conclusions haue you deuised manie in your Annotations fitter a great deal to bring your wholl Religion into derision then to edifie in true faith Thus haue you long and yet still would you mocke the world but your mockeries are well espied the Lord be praised for it The Queenes Eunuch of Aethiopia came to Ierusalem to worshipp ergo pilgremages to holie places are acceptable to God pag. 512. Act. 8.27 This reason why it should not be allowed Master R. saieth he cannot gesse and desiereth me if I haue anie hid imagination to impart it vnto him which I am verie well content to doe The cause that mooued this noble man of Aethiopia to trauaile so farre was for that in Iudea onelie was the visible Church of God and in Ierusalem stood the Temple wherein onelie sacrifices might be offered to God Which being so necessarie was it for him to repaire thither for the exercise of his religion in the Church of God and place particularlie thereunto appointed by the Lord. This can you not applie to Rome or Ierusalem now or anie other place in the world and therefore manifest dissimilitude and inequality is there betweene this Eunuches iourneying to Ierusalem for so godlie and necessarie causes and popish pilgremages to places abroade for noe cause but onelie for idle and wandering superstition Concerning putting of our cappes pag. 515. Phil. 2.10 and making curtesie at the name of Iesus Master Rainolds is verie earnest and concludeth in the end that I am an Atheist and make no account of Christ for denying that seeing we yeald this honour of capp and curtesie to the letters name seale and seat of the Prince If this be a true argument Master Rainolds as you in your vehemencie would haue it seeme how commeth it to passe that Gods name amongst you is not honoured with like reuerence of capp and knee whensoeuer it is heard will you put of your capp when the Prince is named and wil you make curtesie at the Popes name at his triple crowne or crosse and will you neuer once stirre your cappes or bowe your knees when God is named Is this your Religion is
AN answere to a certeine Booke written by Maister William Rainolds Student of Diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes and entituled A Refutation of sundrie reprehensions Cauils c. By William Whitaker professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge Printed at London for Thomas Chard 1585. To the right honorable Syr VVilliam Cecill Knight of the Garter Baron of Burghley Lord high Treasurer of England and Chancelor of the Vniuersitie of Cambridge Grace and peace IT is not vnknowen to your Honor how the aduersaries haue neuer ceased since the beginning of hir Maiesties moste happie reigne vntil this day by their bookes in great numbers written and published and by al other means that possiblie they might deuise to trouble the state of the Church and to diffame that holy religion of Christ which through Gods great mercie and godlie lawes of our gratious Souereign is according to his holy word established amongst vs. VVhat they haue wrought with manie of al estates and how mightelie they haue preuailed with that strong effectual illusion of Satan which hath aduaunced Antichrist vnto that supremacie of power authoritie and credit in the world wherof the holy ghost by SS Paul Iohn hath foretold lamentable experience can witnes in the backsliding and continuall falling of manie away from vs to their own final perdition to the grief of the godlie to the great encouragement and comfort of the enemie And among other examples of this Apostasie I offer to your Honor one verie notable euen the man with whom I haue in this booke to deale who hauing bene late not onlie a common professor of our religion but a publick minister and preacher of the same in our Church hath not onlie reuolted from vs through some worldly tentations and run ouer into our enemies cāp but hath also lifted vp his heel against vs and in open writing most malitiously and bitterly railed at vs. Occasion of vttering his conceiued malice against vs in his late writing he taketh by a certein Preface of mine before the answer to D. Saunders demonstrations of Antichrist which being not verie long and handling no great variety of matter I neuer thoght could haue prouoked the Aduersarie so much or procured so long and large a Confutation I looked rather that the substance of my book concerning Antichrist should haue bin answered by some that would maintein Saūders arguments wherby he laboreth to prooue that the Pope cannot be Antichrist which being in deed a weighty and moste materiall controuersie required the learning and diligence of the moste sufficient scholler amongst them Neither coulde I otherwise suspect but seeing I had written in latin against a latin Aduersarie he whosoeuer should take in hand to set forth anie thing against me would haue done it in the latin tongue But M. Rainolds who was appointed as he saith to aunswere my booke of Antichrist and in all his actions professeth himself to be ordered by those to whose gouernment he hath submitted himselfe pretending in shew to publish a confutation thereof hath written onely against the preface wherin are handled other matters so hath answered nothing to the principall question wherof the book that he would seeme to haue confuted speciallie entreateth further hath written not in latin as I did but in english as liked best his gouernors himself VVherupon I was at the first partlie persuaded to passe ouer this Refutation of his with silence the rather because I listed not to reason or deale against such a one as he is of whom for manie respects I could not conceiue anie hope at al that euer my labors should doe him good hauing thus embraced pernitious deceitful error wilfullie cast awaie from him the loue of the truth which once he had in shew receiued which he pretended to beleeue and which he did in deed profes Which kind of men through Gods iustice for the most part are giuen ouer into such reprobate hardnes of hart that they can neuer after be reclaimed but continue alwaies desperate to their euerlasting destruction Notwithstanding when I perused better the contents of his booke and tooke aduise of the godlie what were best for me to do herein whether I should make answer to this man or rather obeying king Ezechias commandement let him alone and say nothing to him I was in the end resolued to set forth a plain and sufficient answer to his whole volume not for his sake of whom I haue no hope nor respect but in regard of others who thereby maie either be confirmed in the truth or preserued from error I see the Aduersaries drift especiallie was to breed in the minds of our countrimen a misliking of this our religion which himself hauing once liked wel was after I know not how moued to mislike The which he endeuoreth to performe by some other means then heertofore haue commonlie bene vsed as anie man reading his book may soon obserue wherin he shal finde continual allegations of testimonies out of our owne writers craftely brought in to shew a dissension of iudgements amongst our selues that so his readers may be induced to thinke the worse of our doctrine and of vs al. A deuise ful of fraud dishonestie malice to take aduantage of mens infirmities imperfections against the eternal truth of God which he cānot by ordinarie lawful kind of reasoning refute Betweene Luther and Zuinglius about the Sacrament was a sharp contention hotlie debated in manie books the same hath cōtinued since to the great hindrance of the gospell and offence of many In which contrary writings and discourses are found oftentimes harder speeches of either against other then were to be wished yet such as the godlie seruants of the Lord in contention about the truth somtimes ar moued to vtter against their brethren S. Paul openlie and sharply reprehended S. Peter to his face whereat wicked Porphyrie catched a like occasion to raile at Christiā religion long since as our aduersaries do at these daies VVhat a violent and troublesome contention was there betweene Theophilus of Alexandria and good Chrysostome of Constantinople VVho knoweth not how sharplie Cyrillus a learned and wise Bishop of Alexandria hath written against Theodoritus a godlie and catholick Bishop in a controuersie touching the catholick faith Both Bishops both catholickes both learned both godly both excellent pillers of the Church and yet he that readeth both their writinges would thinke that both were daungerous enemies of the Church and faith of Christ and of all Christians to be auoyded So in the bookes of Luther and Zuinglius and those that maintaine either part appeereth I graunt great sharpnesse and bitternesse of dissension who all notwithstanding if ye set the heat of disputation aside were as godlie as learned as zealous Christians as the worlde had anie Nowe commeth in M. Rainoldes like a craftie enemie and gathering a heape of such speeches out of sundry their bookes hath in diuers places
of his confutation inserted the same as anie occasion woulde serue to make his readers acquainted therewith that seeing such earnest contention among the chiefest professors of the Gospell they may be further withdrawn in alienation of minde from the loue and liking thereof VVherein also to helpe his purpose he hath vsed two kindes especially of vnlawfull sleightes One is to report among others the testimonies also of open Aduersaries to the doctrine of the Gospel as namely of Gabriel Fabritius against Beza and of Castalion and such others as eyther being professed papistes or doubtful protestantes ought not in this case to be regarded Another is to falsifie the iudgementes and sentences of our writers and so to make moste vntrue reports of them As for example in his 12. cha pa. 356. he affirmeth that we begin secretlie to disprooue the Churches faith touching the manner of Christs crucifying namely that his handes and feet were pearsed with nailes and for proofe hereof alledgeth testimonies out of Marlorate Musculus and Bucer in whom no such thing is in anie place to be found And that euery man maie perceiue what pleasure he hath what libertie he taketh to himself of speaking and reporting any thing vntruly he accuseth Castalion to haue made a discourse in the Preface written to K. Edward the sixt before his translation of the Bible in proofe that Christ is not the true Messias which verilie is a foule slander as any man maie iudge that readeth the same so be chargeth vs with the abhominable heresies of the Trinitarians Libertines Anabaptists Antinomi Dauid George and such like whom we detest as much as they against whom both wee haue written more then they and our Magistrates both ecclesiasticall and ciuil haue also seriouslie proceded VVith such allegations of al sorts out of al writers for al purposes hath he fraughted and stuffed his book other substance and waight of matter is there none therin so that of it self it might be thought moste vnworthie of answer Yet because such bookes doe harm abroad and it is expedient to haue the aduersaries folly and weaknes detected I haue vndertaken this labour of answering M. Rainolds and that in english for the same consideration that caused him to leaue the latin and write in the english tongue which I thinke he hath not done so much for want of skil therin as that his writings might commonlie be read and vnderstoode of englishmen This my labour I offer to your Honors good acceptation humblie beseeching you that I may publish it vnder the safegard of your honourable protection And as you haue bene alwayes a zealous louer of Christes Gospell and by your godly wisdome haue done your endeuour to aduaunce greatly the Lordes cause from time to time and to hinder the practises of the enemy so I beseech the Lord to encrease in you all those Christian vertues to the benefit of Christes Church and the common wealth of this Realm Thus I commend your Lordship to Gods moste mercifull and gratious preseruation beseeching him to prolong your dayes vpon earth with multiplication of all graces necessarie for this life and for the life to come Your Lordships to commaund William Whitaker AN ANSVVER TO MASTER RAINOLDS PREFACE WHether Master Rainolds were appointed by his gouernours to make this answere pag 3. as he saith or els of his owne accord tooke the matter in hande without commission of any superior authoritie I take it to be a thing of small regard both in respect of himselfe and of his worke and also of those his superiours to whose direction he professeth to haue committed himselfe and all the giftes he hath Onelie this thing I cannot beleeue although it be no more materiall then the other that he was so loth to take vpon him this buisines as he pretendeth For if we consider not onelie the manner of his writing wherein appeereth as great malice against the trueth of God as shameles railing at Christs gospell and professors thereof as notable pride presumption and hardnes of hart as euer hath done in anie enemie heretofore but further also how necessarie it was for him being a Renegate and of a Minister and Pastor of a Church become sodenlie a seminarie Priest therefore liuing in great suspicion mongst his fellowes to approoue by some publike testimony his vnfeigned conuersion to their synagogue we shall not easilie be persuaded to thinke there was in the man such vnwillingnes in this matter at the first as he would haue vs to suppose But as vaine declamors are commonlie wont to excuse themselues with pretense of being loth to attempt so waightie a matter that they maie seeme somewhat vnwilling to doe the thing which in truth they doe moste willinglie and studiouslie so Master Rainolds could not deuise a more commodious beginning of his declamatorie preface then a protestation of lothnes to write that which anie man maie casilie iudge he went about with all his will industrie and habilitie And that you maie the rather imagine he was forsooth verie lothe to take this matter in hand he can shew you diuerse reasons that made him so loth and yet the true reason that ought indeede to haue hindred his course he toucheth not that herein he was to set himselfe against the knowen truth to write against his conscience in open maintenance of wicked heresies to fight for Antichrist against the Lord and finallie to commit the sinne that either in propertie of nature is the greatest of all or commeth neerest vnto it One reason was he saith because he sawe manie in that societie as willing and more hable to vndertake and dispatch a greater matter then that As willing Master Rainolds whie then haue you dissembled before in telling vs you were vnwilling now by your owne confession you were willing enough but there were manie also in your Colledge as willing as you Whereof surelie we haue no doubt that you are all moste wilfullie bent and earnestlie disposed to doe what harme anie of you possiblie can to the Church of England As for your knowledge and habilitie to performe against vs anie notable enterprise we haue no care we stand in no feare of you we knowe what pith is in the strongest of you And for your selfe Master Rainolds I am of opinion that you maie truelie take the garland from your owne head and giue it rather to manie others of your fellowes Another reason he faineth to be Pag. 4. for that he thought it some iniurie to Catholikes to dispute against that sauage and barbarous paradoxe namelie that the Pope is Antichrist What iniurie could this be thought done to your Catholikes Master Rainolds to write in defense of your Pope and prooue him not to be that Antichrist then which a greater pleasure can no man doe for him and for his Church it being apparant and so of manie Christians beleeued that he is indeed no other then the verie Antichrist himselfe In which respect perhaps your
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
world denied or who could euer otherwise imagine but that men whosoeuer they be are visible and maie be discerned This therfore required not so manie proofes as you haue brought being liberall where no neede is neither in this respect do we meane that there is an inuisible Church by which we vnderstand the elect the faithfull the members of Christes mysticall bodie who although they maie be seene outwardlie in that they are men yet their election their faith their spirituall adoption and coniunction with Christ in which respect they are truelie his Church can not by outward sense be perceiued The number of professors is visible but the number of the elect is not visible that is can not by sight and sense be tried discerned and separated from all others This is the meaning of that distinction which you ought to haue knowen before you laboured to disprooue it But if taking vpon you to refute a thing whereof you are ignorant you faile shamefullie and make your selfe verie ridiculous to your reader it is no maruell and you can blame no other then your owne selfe For what conceite was this that you haue nourished in your braine Pag. 64. and vttered in this booke that we should make the Church of Christ to be inuisible in such sorte as you maintaine the bodie of Christ to be inuisiblie in the Sacrament and hereupon note a wonderfull contradiction in our doctrine I maie truelie saie your case is lamentable and so is theirs that depend vpon you to be thus absurdlie and wilfullie blinded in matters of faith and as it were to grope for light at noone daie which sheweth in you indeede a notable reprobation of vnderstanding as a iust punishment of your Apostasie The Church is not inuisible because the men of whom the Church consisteth are inuisible for the faithfull and elect in that they are men are no lesse visible then the rest but because the elect of God can not be perceaued and acknowledged by outwarde sight of our eies Of Christes bodie you teach most falslie that his verie true naturall humane bodie is in the Sacrament yet that no sense can perceaue it to be there which is to denie and ouerthrow the trueth of his humanitie Therfore you see if anie facultie of seeing remaine in you that betweene this doctrine The Church of Christ is inuisible that is not able by our eies to be discerned and this The bodie of Christ if it were present in the Sacrament bodelie as you teach should be visible that is seene with our eies is not so much as a shadow or fancie of anie contradiction After all this Master Rainolds maketh a long discourse of Dauid George and Sebastian Castalion pag. 66. of whome or for whome I haue for my parte noe neede to answere Dauid George was a damnable heretike and his heresies were by Protestantes not Papistes descried and refuted Castalion you slaunder moste shameleslie in saying he denied Christ to be the Messias as hereafter also in your booke you haue done His preface which he writ to King Edwarde before his translation of the Bible conteineth no such argument and leadeth whollie to another end if you had either witt to see it or good will to acknowledge it Therein he disputeth that some part of those promisses that are contained in the Prophets and namelie concerning the great knowledge that should be vnder Christ is not yet accomplished his opinion of which matters I leaue to himselfe but you haue not done well to charge him vntruelie with so foule a blasphemie pag. 70. As for the great straightes into which Caluine and Luther disputing with the Iewes haue beene driuen by reason of this supposition concerning the Churches fall I know not anie seing they neuer imagined anie such fall as you doe No the heauens shall sooner fall then the Church and therefore you mistake the matter whollie and like an ignorant sophister make impertinent discourses The promises of almightie God concerning the largenes and beautie of his Church vnder Christ haue beene accomplished The Gospell hath beene preached throughout the world the Church hath spread it selfe ouer all nations and neuer since hath it beene shut vp within the limites of one countrie and people as the Synagogue was But as the Prophets foretolde that the Church should be thus mightelie increased and multiplied so the Apostles haue prophecied that in the Church should be a defection that Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God and that the Princes and people of the earth should be drunken with the cuppe of his spirituall fornication and abhominations As we confesse those Prophecies to be fulfilled soe must we likewise acknowledge the truth of these and thereby we are hable to stop the mouthes not onelie of Iewes and Turkes but of all papists also in this controuersie of the churches outward increase and decaie Your monstrous railing in the next section I pretermit beseeching God to open the eies of all Christians and to giue them vnderstanding hartes that they maie discerne Antichrist from Christ falshood from trueth and heresie from pure religion But where you saie that there be many worse Antichristes then the Pope pag. 73. and compare certaine of your late Popes with some of our English Superintendents as you call them in respect of their behauiour and conuersation of life you still misconstrue the matter and speake beside the purpose Your Popes might haue vsed greater shew of honestie and godlines then they haue done yet be neuer the further of from their kingdome of Antichrist which although it be much furthered and maintained by their pride cruelty couetousnes and such other moste monstrous and outragious demeanour as they haue vsed these manie hundred yeares yet it consisteth principallie in that doctrine of Antichristianitie which they holde and by all possible meanes defend most contrarie to the holie and Catholike religion of Christ And yet if your comparison were admitted and the liues of those Antichrists throughlie examined it would appeere that there haue not liued euer in anie state from the beginning of the worlde more wicked vile and abominable men then haue bene the Popes of Rome for diuers hundred yeares together by testimonie of their owne histories They haue in tyrannie exceeded Nero in pride Nebuchadnezer or Alexander the great in other common vices them that for the same haue bene moste infamouslie renowmed in the world wherein if anie professour of the gospell should resemble them or come neare vnto them it were a iust shame vnto their person but yet no disproofe of their religion Now Master Rainolds proceedeth to another pointe pag. 75. namelie the want of religion and conscience which he saith I haue shewed in this answere A greauous accusation in matters of Religion to want religion where greatest conscience is required to haue no conscience at all But if you examine his proofe then shall you easilie perceiue the cauilling spirit of this accuser wherof
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
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
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
that worketh the rewarde shal be imputed according to debt ought to be vnderstoode of the debt due to the wicked worke For that debts are called sinnes in the holie Scriptures you shall often finde Then he alledgeth sundrie places to this purpose and afterwardes proceedeth thus whereupon the same Apostle in an other place saith the wages of sinne is death and he added not and saide likewise And the wages of iustice is eternall life Vitam veró ae ternam soli gratiae consig naret I thinke it should be assignaret but he saith But eternall life is the gracious gift of God to teach vs that wages which is like to debte and rewarde is a recompence of punishment and death and to assigne eternall life to grace onelie And thus determining that rewarde according to debte belongeth to the wicked in respect of their workes but not the beleeuers he goeth on forwarde and saith To confirme as it were his former saying to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the wicked his faith is imputed for righteousnes the Apostle taketh a testimonie out of the psalmes and saith Cui Deus accepto sert iusti tiam sine opers bus As Dauid doth declare the blessednes of the man whome the Lord accounteth righteous without workes This is Origenes iudgement that our ill deedes deserue of due and debte punishment and condemnation but that our good deedes cannot merite the reward of eternal life so hath he discouered the inequalitie of those balances whereof you speake S. Ambrose speaking of Dauid saith that he desired to depart out of this place of pilgrimage to the common countrie of the Saints Ambros de bono mor. Cap. 2. entreating that for the pollution of his abode here his sinnes might be forgiuen before he departed out of this life For he that receaueth not here remission of his sinnes shall not be there and he shall not be there because he can not come vnto eternal life Quia vitae aeterna remissio peccatoruÌ„ est for somuch as euerlasting life is forgiuenes of sinnes In these wordes we are taught that whosoeuer wil haue eternall life must looke to receiue it not for merit of his good workes but through forgiuenes of his euill workes and this namelie he affirmeth of Dauid the holie Prophet and seruant of god with whome in godlines and good workes our Papists maie not anie waies compare Saint Ierome hath many goodlie sentences in his bookes against the Pelagians flatlie ouerthrowing the popish doctrine of iustification by merit of our workes as when he saieth Hieron ad Cte siph aduers Pe lag that before God who seeth beholdeth all things and to whom the secrets of the hart are not vnknowen no man is iust If in the sight of God no man is iust as Ierome trulie according to the holy scriptures maintaineth against the wicked Pelagians who then can trust by his iustice to be saued or how can any man otherwise be saued then by the clemencie mercie and forgiuenes of the iudge can he that saieth and confesseth I am vniust I aske pardon of my God for my sinnes saie with the same mouth I haue deserued heauen by my good deedes Againe S. Ierome saith this is the onelie perfection of men if they knowe them selues to be vnperfect And you saith Christ when you haue done all things saie we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that we were bound to doe If he be vnprofitable who hath done all things what shall we saie of him that coulde not fulfill all things Si inutilis est qui fecit omma quid de illo dicendum est qui explâ—re non potuit Lib. 1. aduers Pelag. and he prooueth at large that neuer anie either did or could fulfill all that of due was required of him In an other booke he saieth then are we iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners and our iustice consisteth not of our owne merite but of Gods mercie the Scripture saying the iust man is an accuser of him selfe in the beginning of his speach Our righteousnes by Saint Ieromes doctrine consisteth not in the merits of our good workes but in the confession of our sinnes and mercie of the Lord. Furthermore he saith in the same booke In Deuteronomie it is plainlie shewed that we are saued not by our workes iustice but by the mercie of God when the Lord saith by Moses say not in thine heart when the Lord shall destroie them before thy face the Lord hath brought me in for my righteousnes c. If the Israëlites could not deserue the land of Canaan to be giuen vnto them for their righteousnes who can trust to receiue the land of life for his worthines This was S. Ieromes faith and this he constantlie defended against such wicked heretikes that troubled the Church of Christ then Mare Erem as our Papistes haue longe done S. Marke the Eremite hath written a booke against those that thinke they are iustified by works wherin thus he writeth Therefore the kingdome of heauen is not a rewarde of workes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the free gift of the Lord prepared for faithfull seruants S. Gregorie came after S. Augustine the space of two hundred yeares Greg. Moral lib. 2. cap. 40. yet held he the same trueth concerning this point as by his writings appeareth As if saith he a mind that is tempted and taken in the neede of his owne infirmitie should saie Grace hath begotten me in the first faith being naked Nudam me in prima fide gratia genuit â—udum eadem gratia in assuÌ„tione saluabit and the same grace shall saue me in the last daie being naked And further addeth that though a man haue some vertues yet it is best for him to cast him selfe downe to acknowledge his owne infirmitie and wantes Ad solam misericordiae speÌ„ recurrat to fâ—â—e to the onelie hope of mercy And thus writeth the same Gregorie in an other place Euerie sinner turning to God with weeping In Ezech. lib. 1. hom 7. in sins now beginneth to be iust when he beginneth to accuse that which he hath done For why should he not be iust that now is cruel by teares against his owne iniustice Therfore our iust aduocate shall defend vs to be iust in iudgement quia nosmetip sos cognosci mus accusamus imustos because we know and accuse our selues to be vniust Let vs therefore put our confidence not in our teares not in our deeds but in the allegation of our aduocate Could anie thing be spoken more directlie against the vaine damnable persuasion of Papists that thinke they shall be saued by their doings and sufferings Now let vs descend lower to S. Bernard who liued after Saint Gregorie fiue hundred yeares and see how the same doctrine hath bene continued and beleeued of the godlie Bernard 〈◊〉 Cant. serm 23. Thus writeth
meant onelie thereby to make himselfe a chiefe Bishop ouer all Bishops and to bring vnder his iurisdiction the wholl Church of Christ and therefore it is euident that S. Gregorie vtterlie misliked that anie Bishop whosoeuer should haue an vniuersall authority ouer the whol Church which is to bring the Church in subiection vnder him That this was the meaning of that title of vniuerssall Bishop S. Gregorie himselfe doth testifie in these words who by the name of vniuersall Lib. 4. epist 38. goeth about to make subiect to himselfe all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirme professe defend proclaime by all meanes possible that all the members of Christ must be subiect to him and that no hope of saluation remaineth for anie but such as continue in his obedience Then denie if you can but that the selfe same authoritie which Saint Gregory reprooued in Iohn of Constantinople your popes haue approoued in themselues euen this last 13. Gregorie who latelie deceased and therefore by iudgement of S. Gregorie manie hundred yeares agoe they are Antichristian Bishops The popes of Rome with their vniuersall supremacie long since condemned by Saint Gregorie a Bishop of Rome and not Catholike pastors of Christes Church Wrangle all ye can S. Gregorie hath plainlie condemned your Popes for taking vpon them both the name and office of vniuersall Bishops Andreas Fricius whom here againe you alledge I haue not to deale with all what thing was meant by this name of vniuersall Bishop may better be learned of S. Gregorie himselfe whoe knewe best the meaning thereof If you require further proofe consider that S. Gregorie reporteth also that the councell of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo Lib. 4. cap. 32. but he would not accept of it Did the Councell meane to take from all other Bishops of the world yea themselues all bishoplie grace and power what madnes is it thus to thinke what impudencie to stand in maintenance thereof as you doe Futher when the Bishop of Alexandria Eulogius in a letter called Gregorie vniuersal Pope Lib. 7. epist 30. Indict 1. meant he to depriue him-selfe of all bishoplie authoritie Nothing lesse And yet Saint Gregorie reprooueth him for so writing and will not suffer himselfe to be so called The name then signifieth that vniuersall authoritie ouer all Bishops and Christians which Iohn claimed and your Popes obtained and long practized and will not yet giue ouer This was vnlawfull in Iohn this Gregorie condemned not onely in others but in the Bishops of Rome also therefore your Popes by witnes of S. Gregorie a Pope are clearely conuicted of vnlawful and Antichristian vsurpation If your Pope refuseth this name of vniuersal Bishop why doth Bellarmine his greatest diuine Couâ—reon 3. Quest 4. recken this for one of the Popes names of dignitie but chieflie why doth the Pope mislike the name and allowe the thing signified by the name Concerning the two other articles pag. 164. c. of Reall presence and sacrifice you are content to saie litle which in effect is nothing For what haue you brought to prooue either of these your opinions you tell vs Saint Gregorie was a Priest and said Masse according to your popish fashion but whe will beleeue your report you haue tolde vs so manie vntruthes That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies that Melancthon saieth he horriblie profaned the communion that Illyricus rehearseth out of a popish writer certaine of his miracles about the sacrament that Paulus Vergerius hath written a booke against his trifles fables that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Austen the monke whome he sent into England that the Bishop of Winchester M. Horne calleth this Austen a bussard It is not Austen that he calleth so but Bonifacius whome they name the Apostle of Germanie what maketh all this I beseech you against Master Iewells chalenge how conclude you hereof your Real presence or your sacrifice of the Masse surely your masters that set you on worke and made you an instrument to publish these thinges abused you much that you might abuse others more To Luthers iudgement of Saint Augustine pag. 166. that after the Apostles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor then he I willinglie subscribe but Luther accuseth the sacramentaries as he calleth them for mangling and abusing him in the question of Reall presence herein I haue nothing to answere in Luthers defense Saint Augustine teacheth no otherwise of Christes presence in the sacrament then we do as by the large treatises that haue bene written of this matter doth appeare yea neither Zuinglius nor Caluin nor anie other of our side hath more fullie and directlie written a gainst the Real and corporal presence of Christ in the supper then S. Austen hath in sundrie places That Luther iudged otherwise it was his errour which he retained of his olde leauen wherewith in time of papistrie his iudgement was corrupted Hereof what argument can you frame against M. Iewell some thing would you faine saie but your words haue no pith of reason in them Saint Chrysostome you saie hath written six bookes of Priesthood pag. 168. and none of ministerhood verilie this is a verie poore argument for the sacrifice of your Masse If this reason holde from the authoritie of Chrysostome I trust the like will not be denied taken from the authority of the scriptures In the new Testament Ministers are named six and six times priests in your sense neuer therefore no Priesthood remaineth and so by consequence no sacrifice But concerning the name of Priest how it hath bene vsed of the auncient writers not in the proper and naturall sense but after the common custome of speach I haue alreadie before declared Thus haue you M. Rainolds vttered all your skill in confutation of the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge Howbeit if D. Harding were aliue I suppose he would thinke you had deserued small thankes Medle no more M. Rainolds in this matter the more ye stirre the lesse ye preuaile your learning is not much your iudgement is lesse you are but a weake instrument to deale with him whom D. Harding could not match M. Iewells chalenge is prooued wise true learned to the praise of Gods trueth shame of papistrie and worthie commendation of that famous Bishop whose memorie is euerlasting and most honourable among the godlie CHAP. 8. Of Bezaes translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the Reall presence MAster Rainolds leaueth M. Iewell pag. 170. c. and proceedeth to maintaine a quarell of M. Martine against Bezaes traÌ„slation of certaine wordes vttered by the Apostle Saint Peter and recorded by S. Luke Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanitie to spend manie words about so small a matter and therefore suffering this man that knoweth no measure either of speaking or holding his peace to talke his pleasure I will herein vse no more wordes then the thing requireth that is as few
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
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
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
but proude blaspemie to saie as the Rhemists saie that as death is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice seing the one stipend is of meere due and desert the other onelie of grace and mercie so that if God would enter into iudgement with vs according to the rigour of his iustice we could not chalenge euerlasting life for any iustice that we had wrought as all the scriptures doe moste aboundantlie and plainelie teach Their onelie excuse hangeth vpon Saint Augustine whoe in a certaine epistle writeth Epist 105. 〈◊〉 Sixtura that euerlasting life is repayed to our merites going before and yet may it well be called grace because our merites are wrought in vs by grace not gotten by our owne habilitie to like effecte he writeth in diuerse other places of his workes and treatises as euerie one knoweth that hath bene conuersant in reading his bookes What then shal we graunt Saint Augustine to be an author of this Popish and Sorbonicall doctrine of iustification by merite of workes Nothing lesse The answere is easie and no more easie then true that by merites Saint Augustine vnderstandeth good workes after the manner of speach in latine and by stipend or reward he meaneth that benefite or gifte which God repaieth to good workes to the workers of iustice What difference then is there betweene our Sorbonists and Saint Augustine with whome we also consent In wordes may seeme no difference at all in substance and truth of doctrine as great difference as is betweene heauen and earth life and death God and man We know and confesse with Saint Augustine according to the doctrine of holie scripture that life eternall is a reward of iustice and good workes but not as death is a stipend of sinne according to the Sorbonists and Rhemists religion And howsoeuer Saint Augustine pleaseth them in his exposition of this place the which notwithstanding being rightlie vnderstood maketh nothing for them yet other fathers haue obserued of the Apostles wordes set downe in this manner that eternall life is onelie a gift not deserued but freelie bestowed and that this was the cause whie the Apostle applied not the name of stipend to life euerlasting as he had done before to death Looke vpon Origen in his commentaries vpon the fourth of the Romans and the latter end of the sixt And this as it is sound and sincere doctrine so must it also of all Christians necessarilie be confessed For he that sinneth hath deserued death worthilie in respect of the sinne committed which is a transgression of Gods will and commaundement and for which without remission there is no hope to escape eternall condemnation But can he that worketh well for one or two or moe good workes claime vnto himself as a due debt the kingdome of heauen for the same For what if the Lord will examine our workes straitlie according to his lawe in euerie circumstance our inward zeale loue intention desire of Gods glorie continuance and perseuerance in well doing conformitie of our will with the rule of Gods word and shall finde in the worke and in the worker great infirmitie manie wants much imperfection manifold sins in the meane time both in thought in worde and deed shall the good workes notwithstanding being thus tried found in them-selues insufficient vnanswerable to gods iustice and also hauing manie sinnes inherent together with them in the same person stand vp before the Lorde and chalenge of right the reward of life euerlasting in his kingdome Neuer durste yet anie childe of God vpon trust and confidence of his owne iustice chalenge such debt at the handes of God or yet appeare at all in his presence The Prophet Dauid although he were a holie man and had not onelie repented hartelie for his wicked deedes but also brought forth manifold fruites of repentance and regeneration yet desireth moste humblie of the Lord that he would not enter into iudgement with him psal 143.2 for so much as if he woulde so doe neither he nor anie man liuing could escape condemnation And againe If thou saith he wilt marke our iniquities O Lorde whoe can stand before thee psal 130. â— Wherein he plainlie teacheth that for a man to trust in his workes how good or glorious soeuer they are or seeme to be and vpon this confidence of his merites to looke for heauen as a due reward at gods handes is not onelie to deceiue himselfe but to incurre that iudgemente and condemnation which the Lord for his sinnes and vnworthines that by examination he findeth in him might iustlie cast vpon him Therefore he saith in another Psalme that they are happie not which haue good workes wherein to trust psal 32. â— but whose sinnes are forgiuen and whose iniquities are couered And this haue also all the godlie fathers of Christes Church euermore confessed that their workes of due and debt deserued nothing of the Lord but punishment and therefore disclaiming all their merites and acknowledging their owne manifolde transgressions and imperfections they flie to the Lordes mercie onlie and trust to be saued by grace and remission of their sins not by desert or merite of their righteousnes that they haue wrought Yea the Romane Church it selfe which moste of all magnifieth the merites of workes yet being secretlie and as it were vnwittingly caried away with sway of this trueth hath sometimes made open confession thereof and taught all hir children to sing an other song then that which now so commonly is heard amongst them of iustification and saluation through merite of their workes For in the seruice that is prescribed for the dead this praier is set forth to be vsed of all and is oftentimes repeated Domine quando veneris iudicare terram vbi me abscondam á vultu irae tuae Quia peccaui nimis in vita mea In officis defunctoruns Commissa mea pauesco ante te erubesco dum veneris iudicare noli me condemnare Quia peccaui nimis in vitamea that is O Lord when thou shalt come to iudge the earth where shal I hide my selfe from the presence of thy wrath Because I haue siâ—ned exceading lie in my life My misdedes I am afraid of and I blush before thee when thou shalt come to iudge condemne me not For I haue sinned exceadingly in my life Thus is euerie one taught to praie and this you confesse to be a good praier and necessarie for all to vse as at other times so especially when death approcheth And verelie howsoeuer it is now for a fashion with great countenaunce and vehement disputation auouched by some that we merite heauen by our good workes yet I am perswaded that no aduersarie of conscience can otherwise thinke or dare in perill of death otherwise saie but that he hath deserued for his sinnes punishment and death euerlasting and cannot auoide the same if God will render to his workes the reward that of due belongeth vnto them and therefore casting awaie all trust in his workes will aske pardon and mercy not claime any debt or due reward of the Lord. So though in their life time many of them be obstinatlie bent and haue in their mouth nothing so much as good workes merite rewarde due debt recompense for their wel doing yet the time drawing neer when they must holde vp their handes at the barâ—e of the Lords iudgement seat and there must make answere for themselues and their workes must be tried by the lawe of God they giue ouer their former confidence they haue no ioie in them-selues yea they distrust their owne workes they tremble and quake inwardly they are in fearfull heauines and perplexitie of minde they knowe not whither to turne them-selues and if God giue such grace vnto them then they see and forsake their error of deseruing heauen then they confesse they are sinners and therfore guiltie of death and then learne that lesson in their end which afore in their life time they would not vnderstand Yet doth euerie faithfull Christian keeping as much as in him lieth the commandements of God hope for the kingdome of heauen aske eternall life yea and also in some sorte promise to his workes the crowne of glorie not for merite and worthines of his works but in respect of Gods meere mercy whoe hath promised to bestowe vpon vs and our workes greater reward then we can possiblie deserue This is the difference betweene the doctrine of Christ of the Prophets of the Apostles and of the fathers which we follow and the doctrine of the Sorbonistes and Rhemists and all Papists which whoe so holdeth shall be sure neuer to be saued Thus appeereth how vaine and childish it is that you intitle your schoole of Sorbone with the names of Salomon Dauid Esaie Ieremy Peter Paule Augustine as though they had euer bene entred into that Colledge and taken degree in your schoole whereas whosoeuer marketh the point of difference betweene their doctrine and that of Sorbone shall plainlie perceiue they were no Sorbonists nor euer alowed the Sorbonicall and pharisaicall iustice of merites How ignorantlie you obiect shamefull ignorance to me maie appeere by that which now and before hath bene aunswered it being indeed manifest that your selfe either know not the true state of the controuersie or els haue replied neuer a word aptlie to purpose Soli Deo sit gloria ERRATA Pa 37. lin 17. strange p. 86 15 there p. 143.1 meaning p. 144.17 renegates P 294 21 as well p 334.5 is as corrupt pag. 351 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in certaine copies p. 159. the last line and pag. 160. the first line read it thus before Valentinian to haue a Councell that a Councell by the Emperour c. Other errors perhaps haue escaped but the reader I trust will easilie espie correct and pardon them Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge 1585.
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
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