is and must be deduced to wit the cause why the Englishe congregatioÌ„ admittinge S. Iames hath reiected those other and we shall straightwaies finde not only that he ouerthroweth himself which is a comoÌ„ tricke amoÌ„gst such good writers but also concludeth the contrarie of that which here he preteÌ„deth The Church readeth the bookes of Iudith Tobie and the Machabees saith S. Hierome but reckeneth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures In that the Church at solemne times read them it is a great argumente that she much honoured them although she admitted them not as then vniuersallie into that highest roome of supreme authoritye But of S. Iames we heare not so much but contrariwise Eusebius directlie affirmeth if M. VV. saie true and iudgeth wold all other men so to iudge that that epistle of S. Iames is a false and bastard epistle and Hierome a prieste after the order of the Romane Church and not a minister after the fashion of the English congregation is brought to proue the same Who seeth not now what greate difference there is betweene these two verdits geuen in by these auncient fathers the first being read in the Church had a degree to Canonicall scriptures the later had no such Of the first he bringeth in S. Hierome saynge onlie that as then it was not acknowledged for Canonical he bringeth in S. Hierome to saie as much of the second and for a surcharge he ioyneth Eusebius directlie affirming it to be a bastard epistle and withall wishinge all men so to iudge of it him self inferreth that Luther in his rashnes which we condemne folowed the iudgement and testimonie of the auncieÌ„t primitiue Church he affirmeth farther as a general principle namely treatinge of this epistle Quod principio statim non habet diuinam authoritatem non potest tempore hominum approbatione fieri diuinum That vvhich at the first hath not presentlie diuine or canonicall authoritye as in their opinion S. Iames had not can not be made canonicall by the approbation of men yet now of these he wold haue vs learne this distinction that the primitiue Church vniuersallie reiected the bookes of Iudith Tobie the Machabees some onlie and those without iust cause refused S. Iames epistle and therefore that the English congregation hath done verie discretelie to authorize the one disauthorize the others let him not playe to much the Sophister but answere as becoÌ„meth a Diuine saue him self in this froÌ„ opeÌ„ folie contradiction he shall shew more wisedome learning theÌ„ hetherto he hath geuen vs occasion to deeme in him And that he may the better waye the veritie and substance of his aunswere and the reader haue occasion to consider what a variable tottering gospel these men preache and how iustlie we obiect to them that at their pleasure they make hauocke of scripture I will laye to M.VV. reasoning the effecte of the late disputation had in the Tower with F. Campian touching this pointe This they make the mayne grounde of their whole argameÌ„t Those bookes vvhich olde fathers and Councels haue not receaued for canonical bookes to ground our faith vpon them can not nevâ— meâ— nor the Tridentine Councel make canonical This proposition standâ—ng for good which they so confidentlie vrge and M.VV. thinketh yâ— moste assured let vs see vppoÌ„ this rule what waste they make of the sacred bookes vppon that ground thus they buylde or rather pull downe Aug. li. 2. cap. 8. de doct Christiana leaueth out Baruch and the tvvo last bookes of Esdras Hierom in his preface vppon the booke of Kinges saith that Sapientia Salomonis Iesus the sonne of Sirach Iudith and Tobias are not in the Canon Eusebius in his sicâ—e booke and 18. chapiter it is the 19. leaueth out the third and fourth of Esdras Tobias Iudith Baruch Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and the bookes of Machabees and concerning the epistle to the Hebrevves though him selfe say plainly it is S. Paules yet he confesseth that many haue doubted thereof also coÌ„cerning the second epistle of S. Peter he saith it vvas doubted of many so of some vvere the last tvvo epistles of Iohn The same Eusebius li. 4. ca. 26. it is 25. speaketh of Melito bishop of Sardis vvho reckening vp the volumes of the old testament omitteth Esdras Tobie Hester Iudith Baruch VVisdome Sirach the bookes of Machabees And the CouÌ„cel of Laodicea omitteth Lukes gospel the Apocalyps you see therefore that these olde Fathers haue leaste these books out of the canon yet vvere not called heretikes nor blasphemers Thus farre they Afterwards they define those to be not Canonical but Apocriphal that are not in the auncient Canon receaued and allovved to haue proceeded vndoubtedly from the holy Ghost and those Apocriphal are forbid to be read and though they may be read for moral lessons yet not for matters of religion Afterward the same argument is resumed againe and especially that parte vrged that the Councel of Laodicea leaueth out those former bookes in the olde Testament Tobias Iudith the booke of vvisdome Ecclesiasticus and in the nevv Testament Luke and the Apocalyps And when F. Campian answered that that Councel was but particuler reply was made that the Councel vvas prouincial and farther confirmed by the sixte general Councel holden in Trullo Constantine being presideÌ„t as Bartholomeus CaraÌ„za vvriteth fol. 71. And therefore vve may leaue out of the canon Tobie Iudith c. vvhich your Councel of Trent thrust in as autentical Hetherto your brethren in the fourth dayes conference In the first day vpon like warrant they recken amongst Apocryphal bookes that which you labour so much to saue S. Iames which there is called a counterfeit or bastard epistle by iudgement of Eusebius Item the epistle of Iude the later of Peter the second and thirde of Iohn And against these they alleage Eusebius Hierome Epiphanius and the Councell of Laodicea confirmed as they say there againe by the general Councel holden in Trullo And yet such is their inconstancie in the same place some of these in worde they professe to receaue but only as at pleasure of curtesie and liberalitie not as of fayth dutie and necessitie For the summe of all commeth to this and it is the effect of that disputation Such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of we are not bound to admit for Canonical but may refuse now These particuler bookes here named haue bene doubted of in olde time ergo these bookes we are not bouÌ„d to admit for Canonical but may refuse them now This being your reason and the same so manifestly approued by them and you out of the same for our presente purpose against you this I note First how iustly we accuse you for defacing and renting out so many parcels and whole bookes of scripture In the olde Testament Tobias Iudith Hester Baruch The booke of Wisdome Ecclesiasticus The two bookes of the Machabees
no wiser then they who in so shorte space haue falleÌ„ out with your self altered your iudgmeÌ„te and now esteeme that for apocriphal which then was to yow canonical that is now iugde that to be the moone which then you thought to be the sunne Our lorde geue his people grace to thinke of you as you proue your selues that is so fantastical inconstant that you know not what to say and whyles you seeke to keepe your selfe aloofe from the Catholike churche the sure piller grouÌ„de of truâ—he you plunge your selues ouerhead and eares in such foule absurdities as neuer did heretikes before you For what is the reason of al this because besydes the written word or scripture yow wil not acknowledge any traditioÌ„ of the Church wherevnto by this question yow are enforced of necessitie For if we are bound to beleeue certaine bookes as for example the Gospel of S. Matthew S. Marke S. Iohn and S. Paules Epistles to be Canonical that is heaueÌ„ly and peÌ„ned by diuine inspiration and yet the same can not be proued by scripture theÌ„ cleare it is that we are bound to beleeue somewhat which by scripture caÌ„ not be proued and so the tradition of the Church is established And marueyle it is that yow perceaue not how grosly yow ouerthwart your self and plainly refel that which yow would seeme most earnestly to confirme For if yow march your beleefe of scripture with knowledg of the Sunne and Moone and such like as are knowen by only sense the light of nature then you deny it to be any article of your faith For these two are directly opposite and the apostle confirmeth this reason wheÌ„ he defineth faith to come by hearing and hearing by the vvord of God ergo fides ex auditu auditus per verbuÌ„ Dei And therefore if you beleeue not with humaine faith as yow beleeue Tusculanes questions to haue bene written by Cicero but with Christian diuine faith as yow beleeue Christ to be your sauiour if thus you beleeue the Gospel which beareth S. Matthews name as likewise that of S. Marke and S. Iohn to haue bene written by them then yow beleeue so because so yovv haue heard it preached and so yovv haue receaued and consequently by the Apostles authoritie that verie matter so preached vnto yow is the vvord of God which word of God whereas yow find not in the scriptures hereof it foloweth manifestly that somewhat is the vvord of God which is not scripture and therefore yow and your fellowes beleeuing only scripture beleeue not al the vvord of God but only a peece thereof and so did the worste heretikes that euer were yea so do at this day the verie Turkes and Mahometanes But to end this special matter with yow M. VV. touching your distinction betweene S. Iames and Tobias Iudith the Machabees c. where you make this to be the difference that S. Iames vvas refused but of a fevv and the other generally of the vvhole Churche tota Ecclesia repudiauit say you for declaration of your truth herein I referre you to the moste euident testimonies of the same auncient Churche S. Augustine setting downe the Canonicall scriptures as they were read and beleeued in his time placeth S. Iames I coÌ„fesse in order with the Gospels Pauls epistles yet not excludiÌ„g those other but in the selfe same place numbringe Tobie Iudith and the Machabees with the bookes of Moses and the Prophetes his saith he 44. libris veteris testameÌ„ti terminatur authoritas In these fourtie and foure bookes is concluded the authoritie of the old testament Likewise the Councel of Carthage approueth for Canonicall S. Iames but in the same CanoÌ„ it approueth as far the other forenamed and teacheth of them as directlie as of the other that they are Canonicall scriptures Somewhat before S. Augustines daies they were not by publike decree of the Church receaued as appeareth by S. Hierome and the Councel of Laodicea but then when there was as greate doubte of S. Iames epistle S. Paule to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps touchinge the first it is manifest by that which hath bene said by you and your felowes Of the secoÌ„d there was more question then of the first and S. Hierome seldome citeth it but he geueth a note signifyinge that it was not in his time taken for Canonical In the Epistle to the Hebrevves vvhich the custome of the Latine Church receaueth not saith he it is thus vvritten Againe the blessed Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrevves although the custome of the Latin Church receaueth it not amongst Canonicall scriptures Againe this authoritie the Apostle Paule vsed or vvhosoeuer he vvere that vvrote that Epistle In catalogo he saith that euen vnto his time it vvas not accounted the vvritinge of Paule and that Caius an auncient writer denyeth it to be his and in his epistle to Paulinus sette before the Bible he saith that a plaerisque extra numerum ponitur of the more part it is put out of the nuÌ„ber of Paules vvritinges The like might be declared by S. CipriaÌ„ Lactantius Tertullian Arnobius and S. Austine if it were needefull and the Apocalyps was yet more doubtful then ether of these two as wee see by the Councel of Laodicea leafte oute of the rolle of Canonicall writinges when both the other of S. Iames and S. Paule were put in Wherefore as false that is which M.VV. constantlie auoucheth of the auncient Church touchinge the seueringe of these sacred volumes so hath he not yet nor euer shalbe able with reason to satisfie M. Martins demaund why they of England haue coÌ„desceÌ„ded to admit the one rather then the other And here the reader may consider esteeme as it deserueth of that glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in fine he singeth to him self settinge the crowne of triumphe vppon his owne head and his felowes Nothing saith he is novv more vulgar then the Papists arguments against vs. Quicquid afferri a quoquam potuit vidimus diluimus protriuimus vvhat so euer could be said of anie of them al vve haue seene it refelled it and trode it vnder foote he may consider I saie how like this man and his companions are to worke such maisteries who as yet knowe not what those weapons are which they should vse in atchiuing such conquests For whereas they vaunt to doe this by the written worde yet are not resolued amoÌ„gest them selues what that written word is and how farre it extendeth it is as fantastical a parte to bragge of victorie as if a mad man should ruÌ„ne into the field to slea his enemie and when he commeth there knoweth not with what weapon to begin the fight Wherefore wel may he and his felowes heare and see the Catholike doctrine as Esai speaketh of the Iewes concerninge the doctrine of Christ hearing shal you heare shall not vnderstand and seeing shal yovv
that it svvarueth from the Apostolicall doctrine and teacheth cleane contrarie to S. Paule and all scriptures if Luther flatly expresly deny it to be Apostolical and affirme it to conteyne no one title or letter of such matter as the Apostels are wont to haÌ„dle if WolfgaÌ„gus Musculus vse him so contemptuouslie as though he were some poore rascall not worth the naming and teache him what he should say and sette him to schole this being euident then F. Campions conclusion standeth strong that Luther with his complices contemne that parte of scripture howsoeuer he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strawen or wodden And therefore ether let M. VV. lyke a good childe confesse with Luther vvhom gladlie he vvorshippeth as his father and vvith the Lutherans vvhom he embraceth as his most deere brethren in Christ that this epistle is no more worth then his father and brethren make of it or if he mislike such consanguinitie as sure I am they abhorre him let him then detest them as profane and wicked men who so impiouslie reiecte the written worde of God that is the foundation as they say whereon is buylte their newe congregation and so may the reader note downe one more capital and substantiall point of dissension betwene those two churches lutheran zuinglian then heâ—herto he hath consâ—dered although nether can he so doe precisely but rather note it as a diuision amonge the zuinglians also for so muche as it appeareth by Musculus that the Zuinglians of SuitzerlaÌ„d no lesse then the LutheraÌ„s of Germanye disagree from the Englishe churche in their Canon of scripture yea the Englishe church within it self as shal appeare in the nexte chapiter CHAP. II. Of the Canonical scriptures and that the English cleargie in accepting some and refusinge others are ledde by no learning or diuinitie but by mere opinion and fantasie AFTER S. Iames foloweth a questioÌ„ proposed by M. Martin how it chauÌ„ceth that the English church doth admit S. Iames epistle which sometime was not admitted and yet wil refuse Tobias Ecclesiasticus the books of Machabees which were no farther disproued then that of S. Iames. The reason in truth is the same in effecte geuen by M.VV. because these later contayne such proofe of the Catholyke religion as by no sophisticatioÌ„ can be eluded S. Iames they thinke is not so flat but shifts they haue to ridde their handes of him well inough So much writeth Caluin Some there are that thinke this epistle not vvorthie of authoritie but I because I see no sufficiente cause vvhy it should be reiected gladly vvithout controuersie embrace it for vvhereas the doctrine of free iustification semeth to be refuted in the second chapiter in his place I shall easelie ansvvere that matter As if he had sayd that therefore he admitted it because he had found out a quidditie to auoide that hard obiection agaynst only faith which answere notwithstaÌ„ding because it is false peeuish sophistical and cannot abide the tryall as wel proueth Illyricus Pomerane Musculus they therfore thought the other way more cleanlie rather vppoÌ„ preteÌ„ce of some doubte made in the primitiue churche cleane to shake it of with the rest then vppon a vaine toy which must in fine shame it selfe make hazard of their solifidian iustificatioÌ„ which must needes come to the grounde if this Apostle retaine his old credite This I say in deede is the reason but because thus to haue spoken plainlie had geuen a sure demonstratioÌ„ to the reader that they make no more account of scriptures then of fathers no more reckning of Iames or Peter then of Gregorie or Austin if they be against their conceaued heresies therefore M. VVhit semeth to shape a more cleanlie answere and this yt is All the church saith he reproued not the epistle of Iames and they that reproued it vvere moued so to doe by no sure reasons but these bookes vvhich you name Tobias Ecclesiasticus the Machabees the vvhole churche of old reiected nether vvere they vvritten in the Hebrevv tounge vvhereas no bookes of the old testament vvere Canonicall but onlie those vvhich the lord commended to the old churche Two reasoÌ„s he seemeth to geue the first that no bookes in the olde TestameÌ„t are Canonicall but such as were written in the Hebrew the proofe wherof consisting onlie in M.VV. authoritie without ether reason or probabilitye or Doctor or Councell if I oppose against him S. Augustine with the catholike churche of that age I trust the reader wil not greatlie stagger which syde he ought to take and if this reason hold I marueile what shall become of Daniel a great parte wherof is held of them for Canonical yet is not writteÌ„ in the Hebrew His other argument is of more force that the vvhole primitiue church refused the bookes of Machabees Iudith Tobie but certaine onlv that vppon no good reason refused S. Iames. These two partes if he proue and shew this difference he sayth somewhat I wil be of iudgement as he is if not whereof I assure my self then as before so here styll lust and fantasie ruleth them in mangling thus the scriptures not reason diuinytie let vs see how he proueth that the whole churche reiected the former S. Hierom sayth the church readeth the bookes of Iudith Tobias the Machabees but reckeneth theÌ„ not amongst canonicall scriptures This for them how may we fynd now that not the whole churche but some particuler men and they not vppon any good reason refused S. Iames For this part we must credit M.VV. vppon his worde for besyde his worde reason or coniecture he yeldeth none but coÌ„trariwise to disproue this his distinction and approue that without reason or conscience he and his fellowes haue made choyse of the one with condemnation of the other thus to do M.VV. him selfe ministreth vs mattet abundant for thus he wryteth in his first booke in iustifiynge frier Luther against S. Iames. Luther vvas not ignorante vvhat the aunciente church iudged of Iames his epistle Eusebius doubted not to vvrite of that epistle expresslie I vvold have all men to knovv that the epistle vvhich is ascribed to Iames is a bastarde epistle vvhat could be writteÌ„ more plainly but perhaps Eusebius pleaseth you not geue me a reasoÌ„ vvhy heare then Hierome vvhom you knovv to have bene a Priest of the Romane Church The epistle of Iames is auouched to have bene set forth by some other in his name the one affirmeth it to be a counterfeite the other saith it is supposed to have bene published not by the Apostle but by some other vvhy then are you angrie vvith Luther vvhom you see not suddenlie or rashlie first to have begon to doubâ—e of that epistle but therein to folovve the iudgement â—â—stimonie of the auncient Church Let vs now ioyne together these two proofes of M. VV. with consideration what thence
by the same authoritie Euery man sayng publishing preaching teaching affirming declaring disputing arguing or holding opinion against the first of these articles is adiudged a manifest heretike c. misbeleuers in the other are with great rigor corrected and reformed This was the state of religion left by king Henry after whose death in the time of his sonne vpon very â—ight occasion was quite disanulled al this that the father had by parlament Actes and statutes so carefully established For streight vpon his fathers funerals king Edward saith M. Fox being but a child of nine or ten yere by the instinct of his vncle the Lord protector and Cranmer by consent of parlament did first abolish these six articles and then set forth a second booke of Reformation and after that a third as the religion had dayly more encrease more perfite then the first vnder the title and authoritie of his name After which sort the Zuinglian religion being placed with much dissension and alteration held out for the time of that Prince and was of the next with like authoritie of ParlameÌ„t reiected abolished But being restored againe in the beginning of the Q. Maiesties reigne from that tyme hetherto how the body of the realme hath more and more degenerated from that Zuinglianisme to Puritanisme which as D. Whitg wel proueth is the very next degree to Anabaptisme what infinite numbers in euery shyre as their owne writers record are ioyned to tâ—e Familie of loue which is a mere abnegation of Christianitie what swarmes of Atheistes haue sprung vp with which as D. Whig telleth vs their English congregation is râ—plenished this I leaue to the knowledge remembrance experience and eye sight of the discrete reader If I should note the varietie and difference betwene our Protestantes and the Protestantes of other nations as of Germany Polonia Zuitzerland and France I should neuer make an end because most true it is there is no one article of faith ether touching the blessed Trinitie Christes incarnation and passion resurrection ascensioÌ„ touching the person of the holy Ghost or touching his office there is no one sacrament as the Eucharist Baptisme Forgeuenes of sinnes in penance confession of sinnes to a priest Holy orders there is no one rite or ceremonie ether touching gouernement or diâ—cipline of the church wherein they disagree not These few examples which I haue brought conteining matters of such weight That princes are heads of the church and are not that baptisme remitteth sinnes and remitteth not that priuate baptisme is lawful and vnlawful Confirmation allowed and disallowed Christs descending into hel graunted and denied that he is God of his father and yet is God of him self that al kinds of Religions may for their conscience sake take armes against their prince yet Catholikes may not in any case or for any cause make supposal of such a matter that women are barred by the law of God from exercising authority ouer men euen in matters ciuil and agâ—ine that women by the law of God haue supremacy ouer the cleargy bishops and archbishops eueÌ„ in matters most diuine spiritual that copes and such like ornamentes are to be vsed in church seruice and are to be abolished and burned as monumentes of Idolatrie that by like authoritie of parlaments diuers and contrary faithes are confirmed and ratified These few examples I say al appearing manifestly in the practise and behauiour of one litle Iland and in the compasse of a few yeres al notoriously to be seene in perusing a few english bookes and writers declare sufficiently how true that is which D. Whiteg affâ—rmeth of the Puritans and we find as true in all sortes of Protestants that commonly such as once diuide them selues from the Church fal from errour to errour vvithout stâ—y they declare sufficiently how true that is which I affirme â—â—at these meÌ„ haue no certaintie or stabiliâ—ie of faith therfore hard it is foâ— vs to know what to refâ—â— or dispute aâ—aâ—nst whereas we find such continuâ—l chaunge and varietie Yet al this notwithstanding albeit they haue one faith for Germany an other for Engâ—and and in England one for the South an other for the North one for the fathers reigne an other for the sonnes one for the brother an other for the sister and vnder the â—ame Prince one for the beginning of her reigne an other for the time ensuing one for the nobilitie an other for the commonaltie one for the publike church another for their priuate houses one in their CoÌ„munion booke an other in their seueral writinges although they haue Annuas and menstruas sides as S. Hilary and S. Basil said of the Arrians euery yere and somtimes euery moneth a new faith yet gladly could we deuoure the paine to finde out and learne such their yerely monethly faithes that by refelling them we might saue those christian sowles which through the same monethly dayly and hourely perish euerlastingly had we not a far greater dâ—fficultie in learning out what maner of argumentes are of force and allowable amongst them for refuâ—ing of the same Among Catholikes in al scholes and Vniuersities in al bookes writings argumentes drawen from the scriptures of God from the Traditions of the Apostles from the Authoritie of the Catholike Church of general Councels of the auncient Doctors fathers of the supreme Pastors of the Church geuing sentence definitiue in any controuersie these al and singular are of such weight and estimation that ech one coÌ„uinceth the aduersarie part and no Catholike dare euer resist or oppose him self if he heare the voice and sentence of any one of al these and besides these other argumentes in diuinitie we can not possâ—bly deuise any Vse any of al these in disputation with the Protestant he careth not for them nether wil be bound to them farther then it liketh his owne lust and fansie Approue the Inuocation helpe of Angels by the authoritie of Tobias the free wil of man by the booke of Ecclesiasticus they answere Litle care vve for the example of Raphael the Angel mentioned in Tobie nether acknovvledge vve those seueÌ„ Angels vvhereof he speaketh As litle accompt make I of the place of Ecclesiasticus nether vvil I beleeue the freedom of mans vvil though he affirme it a hundred times And as for the Traditions of the Apostles besides the written word it is their very profession to contemne them and who is there of them al that euer wrote any booke of câ—mmon places who hath not a large treatise particularly against them Alleage against theÌ„ general Councels they answere If this be a sufficient profe to say such a CouÌ„cel decreed so such a doctor said so there is almost nothing so true but I can impugne nothing so false but I can make true and vvel assured I am that by theâ—r meanes the principal groundes of our faith may be
Chap. IX Wherein is refelled M.W. answere to certaine places of S. Chrysostom touching the real presence and sacrifice Pag. 203. Chap. X. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospel cap. 22. corrupted by Beza Pag. 231. Chap. XI M.W. general answere to the booke of Discouerie and of the notable impietie committed by the translators of the English Bibles Pag. 260. Chap. XII M. W. reasons against the latin bible are answered and the same bible is proued to be in sundrie places more pure sincere then the hebrue now extant Pag. 280. Chap. XIII Of the puritie of our latin testament in respect of the greeke copies now extant Item a comparison of our translator with other of this age with an answere to those obiections which M. W. deuiseth against him Pag. 360. Chap. XIIII That to leaue the ordinarie translation of the bible appointed by the Church and to appeale to the hebrue greeke and such new diuers translations as the protestants haue made is the very way to Atheisme and Infidelitie Pag. 406. Chap. XV. How M.W. inueigheth against the new testament lately set forth in this college with a cleare refutation of such faultes as he findeth in the translation thereof Pag. 443. Chap. XVI A defence of such faultes as are found in the Annotations of the new testament Pag. 474. Chap. XVII Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations pag. 527. The Conclusion Pag. 548. A REFVTATION OF M. WHITAKERS REPREHENSION OF THE LATE ENGLISH TRANSLAtiō and Catholike Annotations of the new Testament and of the booke of Discouery of hereticall corruptions CHAP. 1. Of Luthers contemning S. Iames his Epistle and callinge it STRAMINEAM AMONG sundrie cōtrouersies raysed by the Protestants in our dayes one and that of greate weyght and consequence is the Canon of holy Scriptures that is what bookes are to be admitted into diuine and supreme authoritye and as certaynlye wrytten by inspiration of the holy Ghoste to be receaued without any doubte or contradiction In examininge which question the behauiour of our aduersaries deserueth diligent consideration For as in the beginning they much praysed the Fathers Church Councels of the firste fiue hundred yeares not for any respecte or reuerence they bare vnto them but by so doinge to discountenance and thrust out of credite the Fathers Church and Councels of the later thowsand by whom they saw most euidently their heresies to haue bene condemned so not long after for lyke purpose they made vaūt of the scriptures agaynst those very first and moste auncient Fathers not for any iuste honor or regarde which they had of the scriptures but by that meanes to disgrace the Fathers and ease them selues of answering their authoritye when soeuer they should be pressed therewith For that in deede they accompte not of the very scriptures more then of the Fathers but turne them ouer for vs to defende no lesse then the Fathers time and experience hath shewed their publike wrytinges professe as by that which hereafter ensueth shall manifestly appeare and M. Whitaker though in worde he would fayne dissemble the matter yet in facte and truth playnly declareth so much which being so let the Christian Reader as in other things so in this especially note the proceeding of that which these men call the gospell the grosse impietie wherevnto it tendeth and in to what open profession of infidelitie in a shorte space it is likely to breake out which in the compasse of so few yeares is growen to such a head that now already they dare as boldly call in question and deny partes of the holy scriptures as not long sithence they made the like quarels against the wrytings of the auncient Fathers Let the Christian Reader note I say not their wordes but their doinges not their coūterfeit dissimulatiō in speach pulpit sometyme vsed but their euident practise reasons asseuerations published in bookes confirmed by arguments deduced by necessarie coherence from their doctrine and many wayes expressed by them selues in sundry their Cōferences Institutions and disputations and he shall easely perceaue our aduersaries after denyall of the Fathers Councels Tradition and the authoritie of the Church Catholike now at this present to stand vpon lyke deniall of the written worde the Apostles Prophets so as they leaue no one ground whereupon a christian man can rest his fayth or stay him selfe Thus much I gather not onely by the writinges of sundry other Protestants whereof some I shall touch hereafter but euen of M. Whitakers discourse in defence of Luther about S. Iames Epistle whose words and reasons for this purpose and the Readers better intelligence I will sett downe and prosequute somewhat the more at large And firste of all concerning S. Iames his Epistle M. Martin reproueth M. Whitaker for denyinge that Luther called that Epistle stramincam and in so cleare a case charged Father Campian with a notorius lye It is easie to gesse sayth M.W. vvhat a fellovv vve shall fynde you in the reste vvho are not ashamed in the very beginning to lye so egregiously When F. Campian replyed that it was in some one of Luthers first editions though otherwyse altered in the later nether so sayth M.W. Praefationem illam purgatam esse dixisti quam tamen constat nullo vnquam verbo mutatam esse You saye that preface vvas corrected vvhereas it is certayne that there vvas neuer anye vvorde changed in it Now this being the faulte which M. Martin layeth to M. W. see how wel he defendeth himselfe First because after he had read ouer all Luthers prefaces vpon the new Testament as he sayth he found none such there of he inferreth He is not to be accounted impudent as you call me vvho denieth that to be true vvhich he knovveth not to be true but he that to deceaue others defendeth that as false vvhich he knovveth to be most true but I am so farre from acknovvledging this to be true that I neuer thought it to be more false then I thinke it novv I will not wrangle vpon the definition of impudency but whether this dealing be not moste shamelesse and detestable in a Christian let any man of indifferencie iudge First it can not be excused of grosse and insolente boldnesse and rashnesse vpon the vew of one onely edition to deny so peremptorily a thing obiected so often by so many learned men of name and for ought I coulde yet reade or heare neuer denyed by the Lutherans especially whereas withall nothing is more notorious then the manifold alteratiōs which Melanchton and those of VVittenberge haue made in Luthers works corrupting deprauing putting in and taking out so much and so far forth as pleased their chāgeable humor where of the zealous Lutherans in a synode holden at Altemburg by procurement of the Duke of Wirtemberg and Palsgraue of Rhene lamentably complayne Electorales say they Lutheri scripta enormiter quám faedissimé deprauant ita vt post obitū Lutheri c. The
Diuines of the Prince Elector do most filthely and beyonde all measure depraue Luthers vvrytings so as since Luthers death there haue not bene more foule corrupters of Luthers bookes In the same Councel many times they fal into this argumēt and each side in most spitefull termes obiecte to others this faulte as may be seene if you liste to peruse the pages here noted in the margent And in fine there is promise made as a matter of great importance and one of Hercules labours that the Duke of Saxonie will cause Luthers workes to be printed without corruption Illustrissimus Dux Saxoniae curabit tomos Lutheri sine deprauatione typis excudi which notwithstāding is perhaps a harder thing thē the Duke of Saxonie can perfourme though his power were much greater then it is What speake I of the Lutherans with whom Luthers wordes be autenticall and litle inferior to scripture whereas the very Caluinists and that in Geneua where Caluin is all in all yet notwithstanding haue in their prints corrupted Luthers works whereof Ioachim VVestphalus a Lutheran thus wryteth in his Apologie against the slanders of Caluin I Marueil much sayeth he that Caluin keeping such a doe about this one vvord could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the diuine commentarie of D. Luther vpon the epistle to the Galatians and translated into French and printed at Geneua In one place some vvordes are taken avvay in an other many mo some vvhere vvhole paragraphs are lopte of in the exposition of the sixte chapter tvvo pages and an halfe are lefte out vvhere Luther doth reproue the Sacramentaries there especially those falsifiers tooke to them selues libertie to mutilate to take avvay to blotte out and change some vvhere they remoue the name of Sacramentaries at other tymes they haue put in vvordes such as pleased them and that this vvas done at Geneua vvithout Caluins knovvledge it is not very lykely And touching this very place wherof we treate when Coclaeus obiected it to Bullinger as now M. Martin did to M. W. he answered not denyinge that which was so publyke and notorious but Guperem Lutherum sobrié magis modestaus circumspectius c. I vvoulde to God Luther had iudged and geuen his sentence more soberlye discreetelye and circumspectly of Sainte Iames his Epistle and the Apocalips of Sainte Iohn and certayne other Add we herevnto M. W. owne confession set downe in this preface I confesse sayth he that Luther hath vvritten in a certen place that Iames his Epistle is not to be compared vvith the Epistles of Peter and Paule and that in comparison of them it may be iudged an epistle made of stravv Which a man would thinke were sufficiente to cleare M. Martin and M. Campian and to condemne Luther and M. Whitaker For how or in what comparison coulde Luther so speake but onely to disgrace that epistle in respect of other scripture to make it light and contemptible that is not to make it scripture at all For if he thought it to proceede from the holy Ghost as did the bookes of the Prophets the Gospels and Epistles of Sainte Paule how coulde he without intollerable iniurye done to the holy Ghost so debase that wryting which he beleeued to proceede from his diuine inspiration But M. Whitaker replyeth That vvorde albeit I defende not yet iustly may I say that Luther is iniuried vvhen he is accused to haue reiected as made of stravv that epistle and playnely and simply to haue named it so vvhereas he called it so in comparison especially vvhereas these vvordes are not founde in the bookes of later printes and excepte I by chaunce had happened vpon a most auncient edition I might haue sought long inough in the later Confesse you then that there hath bene such choppinge and changinge in Luthers workes that the one differ so far from the other namely in this very point How standeth this now with your former bold asseueration It is certaine there vvas neuer any one vvorde changed therein And what reason haue you better to credit these later printes sett furth by Luthers scholers then the auncient set furth by the maister and author Luther him selfe But to end this matter may it please you to reade Father Duraeus there shall you be informed in what print and edition of Luther these wordes are to be reade to wit not in the later of VVittēberg corrected and corrupted by the ciuill Lutherans but in the more auncient of Iena a Citie in religion lutherish to but yet after a more exacte and precise order then are those other There may you finde that Pomerane a greate Euangelist among the lutherans touchinge S. Iames Epistle wryteth thus Fayth vvas reputed to Abraham for iustice by this place thou mayest note the error of the epistle of Iames vvherein thou feest a vvicked argument besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth scripture against scripture vvhich thing the holy Ghost can not abyde vvherefore that epistle may not be numbred amongest other bookes vvhich set foorth the iustice of fayth There may you finde Vitus Theodorus preacher of Norimberg in hye Germanie wryting thus The epistle of Iames and Apocalips of Iohn vve haue of set purpose lefte out because the epistle of Iames is not onely in certayne places reprouable vvhere be to much aduaunceth vvorkes agaynst fayth but also his doctrine through out is patched together of dyuers peeces vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other Vnto these you may add for your better satisfaction the iudgement of the Centuries noted by F. Campian though not touched by you They say that the epistle of Iames much svvarueth from the analogie of the Apostolicall doctrine vvhereas it ascribeth iustification not to onely fayth but to vvorks and calleth the lavv a lavv of libertie And in the next booke Against Paule and against all scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth iustice to vvorkes and peruerteth as it vvere of set purpose that vvhich Paule disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genes 15. that Abraham vvas iustified by onely fayth vvithout vvorkes and affirmeth that Abraham obteyned iustice by vvorkes You may add Luther him selfe in his commentarie vpon S. Peter ep 1. ca. 1. fol. 439.440 in the common edition of Wittemberg where after he hath geuen many rules taken from his owne licentious doctrine wherby to discerne the true and canonicall scriptures from false and Apocriphal of them al thus he concludeth pa. 442. Atque inde etiam facile discitur epistolam D. Iacobi nomine inscriptam handquaquam Apostolicam esse epistolam nullum enim prope elementum in ea de his rebus legis Hereby vve easely learne that it is no Apostolical Epistle vvhich goeth in S. Iames his name for there is in it no letter or title of these matters that is of onely fayth confidence resurrection c. whereby we must esteeme of true
sanctus in omnibus operibus suis Which verse in hebrew should haue begun with that letter which of al the alphabete only misseth So as most certaine it is that the hebrew is faultie And thus to end this matter of the hebrew fountaines originals I wil gather that which I haue said in to a fevv conclusions vvithal ansvvere M.VV. allegations The first is that this opinion of the Protestants detracting so much from the latin bibles and yelding so much to the hebrevv is Iudaical iniurious to the Church to the holy Ghost and state of the nevv testameÌ„t as vvhereby they professe to thinke more religioÌ„ care of Gods word to haue bene resident in the Iewish synagoge theÌ„ in al the Kingdomes Princes Pastors Prouinces of Christianitie for these thovvsaÌ„d yeres The second that albeit S. Hierom in his tyme so soone after the great persecutions the Church being troubled vvith that most busye terrible and potent heresie of the Arrians against the diuinitie of Christ and the holy Ghost vvhen as yet the Canon it selfe comprehending the sacred bookes of scriptures by general authoritie vvas not confirmed and receaued vvheÌ„ as saith S. Austin there vvas inâ—umerable varietie of latin traÌ„slations Qui ex hebraeâ— lingua scripturas in graecam verterunt numerari possunt latini autem interpretes nullo modo and they infinitely differing among them selues as in the same place he noteth when for these causes there vvas not nor vvel could be any one vniforme translation approued although at this tyme S. Hierom might iustly appeale from them al to the hebrew as in coÌ„parison being most pure incorrupt yet nether then were the hebrew copies simpliciter faultles as hath bene shevved by playne examples and demonstrations by the very ProtestaÌ„te bibles and by confession of the best learnedst among them and S. Hâ—erom though M. W. seeme to ground him self most vpoÌ„ him acknovvledgeth so much For examining tvvo places of Deuteronomie vrged by the Apostle S. Paule in his epistles both differing in that point vvhich he most presseth froÌ„ the hebrew bibles extant in S. Hieroms daies he resolueth in fine that the hebrew vvas corrupted othervvise then the Apostle read it The one place is Scriptum est Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno It is vvritten Cursed is euerie one that hangeth on tree in vvhich short place compared vvith the original in Deuteronomie there is somevvhat to much and somevvhat to litle To much because here is omnis euery one and in ligno on tree which are not now found in the Hebrew though both in the Greeke of the Septuaginta To litle because there is in the hebrew Elohim which wanteth in S. Paule maledictus Deo or Dei cursed of God is euerie one so hanged S. Hierom answereth thus My iudgement herein is this ether that the old bookes of the Hebrevves had othervvise then they haue novv or that the Apostle put the sense of the scripture not the vvordes or vvhich I rather suppose after the passion of Christ both in the Hebrevv and in our bookes the name of God vvas added by some maÌ„ that he might make vs more infamous vvho beleeue in Christ accursed of God The other place is this Scriptum est Maledictus omnis qui noÌ„ permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunâ— in libro legis vt faciat ea Cursed is euerie one that abideth not in al thinges vvhich are vvritten in the booke of the lavv to do them Where the Apostles argument hanging principally vpon the two wordes omnis and in omnibus euerie one and in al thinges both which are in the Septuaginta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nether in the hebrew he thus answereth the matter I am vncertayne vvhether the Septuaginta added omnis homo and in omnibus or vvhether it vvere so in the old hebrevv and aftervvard put out by the Ievves Thus tâ— suppose I am moued for this reason because the vvordes omnis and in omnibus al and in al as necessary to proue that they be al accuâ—sed vvho are of the vvorkes of the lavv the Apostle skilful in the hebrevv tonge and mâ—st cunning in the lavv vvould neuer haue so sett dovvne had it not bene so in the hebrevv VVherefore I perusing the hebrevv volumes of the Samaritanes found there vvritten the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say as omnis siue omnibus al or in al and so that to agree vvith the Septuaginta In vayne therefore haue the Ievves razed that out lest they should seeme to be accursed vvhereas the more auncient examples of an other nation testifie that it vvas vvritten so Thus S. Hierom. Thirdly this I gather that since S. Hieroms time much more haue the hebrew bookes bene corrupted and that not in smale indâ—fferent matters which might better be borne but in very hye pointes touching the diuinitie and humanitie of our Sauiour touching his passion and the redemption of the world And therefore when S. Hierom speaking of the puritie of the bibles before his birth is applied to iustifie the copies written so many ages after his death and so consequently to iustifie al their new English FleÌ„mish and Germane interpretations made according to some hebrew copies as they pretend this is as iust as Germanes lippes according to our english prouerbe whose hartes mindes religions we see to differre infinitely This is to answere of chalke when the question is proposed of cheese Next this we see that the condition of the hebrew tonge is such that errors are very soone coÌ„mitted therein by reasoÌ„ of smale points of distinctioÌ„s of letters so nighly resembling one an other Wherevnto ioyne we the malice of the Rabbines their hatred of the Christians and Christian religion whom Luther confesseth to be as very crucifiers of the word of Christ especially such places as most appertaine to him as they were of Christ him selfe and that they employe their studie herevnto And if we consider withal how in time of the law thorough their default they lost whole bookes volumes of their diuine Prophetes we shal fynde smal reason to moue vs to beleeue that since Christ they should become so holy and deuout watchful circumspect as M.VV. by commending their fountaines and originals would make them Finally al this hath bene declared not only by plaine reasons factes examples demonstrations but also by plaine confession of those whom our aduersaries principally reuerence and honour and in this matter were most skilful by Munster by Pellicane by Sebastianus Castalio by Luther and such others And hereof may the reader easely learne an answer to that questioÌ„ which many frame as a matter of intricate difficultie wheÌ„ these corruptions should come in to the hebrew bibles whether before Christs time or betwene that and S. Hieroms or from S. Hieroms time to vs. Not the first say they because