supper vvithout them is described vsed and practised fully and perfitly and no man can shevv any reason or necessitie vvhy they should be there This is the proceeding of the Zuingliā gospel that which their eternal enemie spake in scorne and derision as a thing so ridiculous absurd that they would neuer admitte for shame that haue these good felowes without shame now receaued in good sooth sadnes Wherfore to help them forward if M. W. will take a litle paynes in searching old copies perhaps he may finde some one or other at lest some aunciēt father that readeth as Luther wisheth thē to reade And to geue him an entrance let him looke in S. Basil the next chapiter to that which he citeth and he shall find him to reade thus Caenantibus illis accepit Iesus panē c. vvhiles they vvere at supper Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake gaue it to his disciples And then leauing out the rest putteth next et hymno dicto exierunt in montem oliuarum and hauing sayd an hymne they vvent forth to mount Oliuet And perhaps if Beza liue to sette forth his testamēt once againe well it may be with some good aduise of such brethrē he wil leaue the words cleane out of the booke or put in one syllable more non and so mende all as he hathe done in some other places vpon as smale reason as this as writeth Gabriel Fabricius whose words to cōclude withall I wil sett downe in latin because you shal perceaue that some man hath written against him whose tonge Beza vnderstandeth wel inough The booke is intituled Gabriel is Fabricii Responsio ad Bezam Vezeliam Eceboliam printed at Paris an 1567. In that booke amōgst many other notable things thus he writeth Id agis haec verba toties repetita hoc est corpus meum perinde accipiēda esse ac si dictum scriptūquè esset hoc non est corpus meum Et fortasse vt tandem te expedias et tot commentariorum plaustra facessere iubeas recurres ad talem emendationem Et quia nostri correctores dicunt in ipsis etiā Pandectis Florentinis saepe deesse negationem tu tali artificio statim te liberes et aduersariis os obstruas praesertim cum alios multos euangeliorum locos similiter scilicet emendaueris partim ex coniectura partim ex manuscriptis vt ais exemplaribus You labour to shevve that those vvords so oftē repeated this is my body are to be taken as though it had bene spoken and vvritten this is not my body perhaps at length that you may ridde your selfe and dispatch out of the vvay these cart-loades of commentaries you vvill flye to such a kinde of correction And because our correctors saye that in the very lavv bookes of Florence oftentymes there vvanteth a negatiue particle you also vvill vse such a shift to stoppe the mouth of your aduersaries especially vvhereas you haue already corrected in like sort very learnedly many places of the gospels partly by coniecture partly by hand-vvritten copies as you tell vs. Some such corrected copies if M. W. cā finde against the next time it wil ease him of much labour put vs to much trouble In the meane season this I dare promise him he shall neuer scoure his coate cleane from those spottes with which in this defence of Beza he hath fouly stayned and soyled him selfe so longe as the old copies of S. Lukes gospell stande in force CHAP. XI M.VV. general ansvvere to the booke of Discouerie and of the notable impietie committed by the translatours of the English Bibles AFTer these particular controuersies and reprehēsions M. W. commeth now to make a general answere vnto M. Martyns Discouery which although it be verie short yet is it verie sweete to the singular commendation of their English trāslations The summe is that al is wel nothing amisse euery word standeth right so as he marueleth that M. Mart. was not ashamed so notably to publish his owne ignorance vnskilfulnes to all the world Thus he writeth Albeit heretofore I liked vvell our translations yet novv I loue them much more vvhereas I see so fevv faultes those so smale trifling can be found out and reproued euē of our enemies For vvhat aduersary vvas there euer so blynded with malice that can not perceaue our translations to be disallovved of you vvithout iudgment learning or reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vve translate sometimes instructions sometimes ordināces sometimes preceptes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to amend our liues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misterie or secrete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thankesgeuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely be loued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 god is not tempted vvith euil He must take and allow in like maner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carcas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 table c. VVhat is there here that a man can find fault vvithall as not translated vvel and truly and vvho vvil not iudge him a reprehender to vvicked importune vvho vvhen he can finde no greater thing for these faults vvhich are none at al pronounceth that al the vulgar trāslations of our churches are to be reiected condemned Haec et ist iusmodi nugae nostra crimina sunt These the like trifles are our faultes This is M.W. defence of their English translatiōs or rather a frendly assertiō that al things in thē are very wel therefore the whole booke of the Discouerie is a peeuish deuise of M. Martin proceeding only of malice without iudgment learning or reason To shew the falsitie and malitious wickednes of the heretikes in translating these verie wordes so were to make an other booke and it is so well done by M. Martin touching euery particular notwithstanding any replye yet made that to hādle the same againe were to cast water into the Terns or light a candel at noone daye Only this will I say in general and proue it that M. Whitaker in affirming thus much sheweth him selfe not only to be voide of wit learning and common sense but also to be void of shame and modestie that he litle differeth from an Atheist or Sadducee that he is more hard-faced then the most reprobate heretikes of this age the worst of his owne brethren And first what wit or learning will allow him amonge Christians to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an image or amonge Pagans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcas more then minister talking of the English ministers a slaue or homo a dog He wil say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his primitiue signification and deriuation may so signifie Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so signifie a carcas But leaue we the second talke we of the first and in that of al other where is like reason I wil not enter in to any
particular Synodes or general Councels yea many times commonly before the vniuersal and Catholike Church the holy scriptures and Spirite of God him self So that as the first of these two that is their mutability in faith withdraweth me froÌ„ al dealing with them as men altogether irreligious vnchristian and godles so the second that is the want of al sound arguments of disputation as much discourageth me from writing vnto them as men altogether vngrouÌ„ded vnlearned contentious such as loue to mainteine an endles talke of al things but haue no order or forme to coÌ„clude resolue of any thing These two partes I wil declare and make manifest by a fevv examples In England what point of religion is by statute more carefully prouided for by seueritie of punishment more vrged by preaching or writing more aduaunced by al meanes possible more beaten in to the heads of the subiectes then the Princes supremacie in causes ecclesiastical for denial whereof so many true and faithful subiectes in our memory haue suffered death Yet on the coÌ„trary syde the subiectes of Scotland were wel allowed to restraine or to speake playnly to keepe in captiuitie their owne Soueraine for intermedling in the Churches affaires as appeareth by their Iustification not long sithence published in their language where the author thereof and the ministers vse these wordes The discipline of the kirke was openly impugned vvhen as the king by the persvvasion of the enemies of the kirke vvas induced to make him self and his priuie councel iudges in the cognition of matters mere ecclesiastical and concerning the doctrine of the preachers and to take vpon him vvhatsoeuer iurisdiction the Pope vsurped there in of old yea and more ouer to discharge the general assembly al pastors vvithin this realme to proceede to the sentence of excommunication also to suspeÌ„d the same At the last some preachers haue bene stopped by commaundement c. This is the faith gospel in Scotland and in England how freely the Puritanes inueigh against that spiritual primacie let their bookes coÌ„monly printed testifie namely the great volume of M. Cartewright against D. Whitg wherein at large he discourseth that that part of the English faith carieth with it infinite absurdities is against the doctrine of the Apostles monstruous in diuinitie iniurious to Christ against the primitiue and Apostolike Church and the vvritten word of God yea vvhere he pronounceth boldly that whiles the common protestantes of England go about to gratifie princes with this spoile of Christ they leaue theÌ„ no place in the Church of Christ Touching the doctrine of baptisme then which nothing is more necessary as being the gate of al other sacrameÌ„ts and the first entrance of christianitie the Communion bookes commonly printed coÌ„mend and allow this faith That by that sacrament children be regenerate and graffed in to the body of Christes congregation and made partakers of the death of our Sauiour And the minister chargeth the people preseÌ„t not to doubte but earnestly to beleeue that Christ vvil sauorably receaue those present infants vvith the armes of his mercie that he vvil geue vnto them the blessing of eternal life and make them partakers of euerlasting ioye Yet coÌ„trarywise in the Tovver disputation the doctors there teach That al those vvhich are baptised are not the sonnes of God because they haue not al the spirite of adoption and children baptâ—sed if they be not gods elect baptisme can not make them his children and so many dying immediatly after baptisme are notwithstaÌ„ding assuredly damned The Communion booke turned into latin and printed at London by Thomas Vautrollerius the yere 1574 Cum priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis wherein they would seeme to notifie their faith to the rest of Christendome touching priuate baptisme ministred in houses by lay men or womeÌ„ in case of necessitie willeth al men to assure them selues that a child after that sort is lawfully and perfitly baptised And touching the parties ministring that sacrament it saith Ego vos certiores facio quod rectè praestitistis officium vestrum in bacre etc. I assure you you haue vvel performed your duety in this matter and kept a right order in the baptizing of this infant vvho being borne in original sinne and the vvrath of God novv by the lauer of regeneratioÌ„ in baptisme is ascribed into the nuÌ„ber of Gods children and made heyre of eternal life Yet M. VVhitaker in this booke teacheth the contrary and saith it is the heresie of the Pepusians and Marcionites to permit womeÌ„ such authoritie euen in case of necessitie which he calleth fained and imaginarie thereby signifying plainly that he beleeueth with the Anabaptistes that baptisme is not necessarie for the washing away of original sinne And the CommunioÌ„ booke also imprinted three yeres after vz the yere 1577 by Richard Iugge printer to the Quenes Maiestie Cum priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis drawing neere to the doctrine of the Anabaptistes and the practise of the church of Geneua where such priuate baptisme is vtterly disliked quite abolished altogether leaueth out that whole Tracte of priuate baptisme The same first booke published in latin touching the sacrameÌ„t of Confirmation containeth this good catholike doctrine that Confirmatio illis adhibetur qui iam baptizati sunt vt per impositionem manuum et orationem vires et defensionem accipiant contra omnes insultus peccati mundi et diaboli Confirmation is applied to them vvhich are novv baptized that by imposition of hands and praier they may receaue strength defense against the inuasions of sinne the vvorld and the deuil In the later Communion booke these wordes as likewise the whole Tracte appertaining to CoÌ„firmation is cleane omitted The reason whereof can be no other then that the Church of England in this point hath altered her faith and ioyneth more neerely then heretofore to the order of Geneua where as witnesseth M. Cart. though it were somtimes allowed yet afterwardes vpon better aduise M. Caluin cheefe Superintendent there thrust it cleane out of the church Touching the article of Christes descending into hel the Communion booke and Creede turned into ryme and sung commonly in their congregations beareth the word in hand that they beleeue as doth the Church catholike yet others by publike writing and disputation refelling that article geue vs iust occasion to suppose that they beleeue vvith Caluin in that point vvho acknovvlegeth no other descent of Christ into hel but his paine vpon the Crosse vvhere yet aliue he vvas damned in soule or as he speaketh sustayned the paines of a damned spirit vvithout any difference but that his torments were not eternal as theirs are In their Communion they sing and say publikely That Christ is the only begotten sonne of God begotten of his father before al vvorldes God of God light of light very God of very God of
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
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
the cuppe or chalice vvhich he speaketh presupposing his heresie to be true therefore I haue made this alteration sayth he That he neuer found among all his auncient copies latin or greeke any one reading as he translateth himselfe also confesseth Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant Albeit I thus translate yet all our old auncient bookes had it othervvise that is so vvritten as it is commonly read and as the papistes vvould haue it Wherefore this beinge his fault that vpon priuate fansie to serue his peculiar heresie he hath altered the very letter and text of the Gospel is he a Christian is he a common heretike nay is he not worse then a Iew then a Turke then the worst kinde of Paganes that pretendinge the name of a Christian will defende suche a vile caitife and monster directly against the sacred Euangelist our blessed Sauiour him selfe and yet forsooth because this man is not only a great piller but also for some great parte a very coyner of this nevv Gospel as it vvere their very Euangelist for much of their text is made by him he must needes be defended though the old Euangelistes go to vvracke for it Pardon me ChristiaÌ„ reader if I seeme somevvhat vehement their dealing being such that if men held their peace the very infaÌ„tes yea the very stones vvould speake as saith our Sauiour And vvithal consider thou vvhen they vvil geue ouer those barbarous Paradoxes of feminine primacie of baptisme not remitting sinnes of their tropical bread c. vvherein they staÌ„de only against the Catholiks or at the most against vs and their brethren the Lutherans when as they wil not geue ouer but continevv and mainteyne their trayterous and Satanicall action commenced against our blessed Sauiour But if vve may vvithout sinne spend time in hearing what they haue to say against him let vs attend M. Whitaker and waygh what he dareth vtter in that behalfe Thus he disputeth The vvordes of Luke are This cuppe is the nevv testament in my bloud that is if vve folovv M. Martins interpretation This bloud is the nevv testameÌ„t in my bloud vvhich is shedd for you vvhat sense is there of these vvords M. Martin and vvhat doubte bloud is this See you not here a manifest repetition of the same thing rising of your interpretation VVherefore seing your sentence is plainely absurde vvho vvil not rather vvith Beza say there is a faulte in the vvordes or vvith Basil reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First of all to beginne you somewhat misreporte M. Martin in sayng that he interpreteth Hic sanguis est nouum testamentum in sanguine meo this bloud is the nevv testament in my bloud For though he deduce that by necessarie consequence yet is it an other thing to say he interpreteth it so The interpretation he geueth you precisely out of S. Chrysostome hoc quod est in calice illud est quod fluxit de latere that vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich flovved out of Christs syde which also S. Leo the greate very diuinelye expresseth Fudit sanguinem instum qui reconciliando mundo et pretium esset et poculuÌ„ he shed the iust bloud vvhich should be both the price the cuppe to reconcile the vvorlde the one in his passion on the crosse the other in the sacrameÌ„t at his last supper whereof though you may truly infer that the bloud of Christ in the chalice is the selfe same bloud that flowed out of the syde of Christ as here S. Leo doth yet talking exactly of propositions you may finde a greate difference As if a man pointing to you should saye this man is a Caluinist or heretike he sayth in deed this Caluinist is a Caluinist yet can you not deny but there is a greate difference in the proposition VVherefore we holde you to the wordes and sense of the Euangelist as your greate Rabbine setteth them doune hoc est sanguis mens noui testamenti This cuppe is my bloud of the nevv testament which is the selfe same without any the least difference which M. Martin geueth you out of S. Chrysostome Now what haue you against it Oh say you it is tautologia an absurd repetition of the selfe same thinge for vvhat double bloud is this First why lye you so grossly and intolerably as to say here is mention of double bloud If I say this Christ is Christ the sonne of God this Messias is the Messias Sauiour of the world this God is God of heauen and earth finde you mentioned a double Christ a double Messias a double God as here you finde double bloud if we say this bloud is the bloud of the new testament Againe lett the reader see if you be not possessed vvith a sprite of giddines and what a miserable surgeon you are who going about to cure Bezaes wounde wouÌ„de your selfe as deepely and whiles you endeuour to excuse his Atheisme and impietie runne headlonge on the same rocke your selfe For what is Bezaes faulte this that to helpe forth his Zuinglian heresie he corrected S. Luke in the later parte of the sentence shedde for you and altered that accordinge to his fansie How doth M. W. mende this by rayling at the first parte This cuppe is the bloud of the nevv Testament for this saith he is tautologia here is double bloud here is an absurd sentence So that now betwene you and Beza S. Luke hath neuer a worde right Beza reprouing and mending the later parte and you being as saucie with the former Is not this well defended Now graunt we al these faults of â—autâ— ogia an absurde sentence an idle repetition c. where lie these faults doubtlesse not so much in the Euangelist who wrote them as in our Sauiour who spake them Suppose I say it seeme harde to your delicate and Ciceronian eares must therefore Christ be sett to schole to learne his lesson of that fierbrande of sedition that sinke gulfe of iniquitie Theodore Beza and what is the absurditie you find in these words mary that that vvhich vvas in the chalice vvas shedde for our sinnes and therefore consequently it was the real bloud of our Sauiour which is plaine Papistrye and against our Communion booke Is it so Then to hell with your Communion booke and you to if that be so opposite to the Gospel of Christ you dare mainteyne it by open checking and controling Christ the eternall wisdome of God And see what rouel we shal haue in scripture if this vnchristian diuinitie go forward And alwayes I desyre the reader to remember that I am by force constrayned to remaine in this base kinde of talkinge in so plaine a matter against these enemies of Christ that seeme to haue lost the common senses of men S. Iohn the Baptist beholding Christ saith Ecce agnus dei ecce quitollit peccata mundi Behold the lambe of God Behold the lambe
theÌ„ Christ would haue obiected that vnto them as he did other faultes Nor the second because S. Hierom had the hebrew veritie as he ofteÌ„ speaketh Nor the third because our hebrew bibles agree with those of S. Hierom. The aÌ„swere I say is easye because whether part of the three so euer a man take he can not misse For errors grew in those bibles some before Christ more after Christ vntil S. Hieroms age and yet more from S. Hierom afterwardes And wel it may be that Christ obiected the same vnto them though it be not recorded in the Testament as certaine it is many thinges he preached vnto theÌ„ and reproued in them whereof no written record is extant And wel it may be that both Christ obiected and the Euangilist noted so much when he writeth as spoken of our Sauiour informing his Apostles and reiecting the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees You haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old Thou shalt not kill Exod. 20. v. 13. you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old Thou shalt not coÌ„mitte aduoutrie Exo. 20. 14. It vvas sayd also VVhosoeuer shal dimisse his vvife let him geue her a bill of divorcement Deut. 24. â— Againe you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old Thou shalt not commit periurie but shal performe thy othes to our Lorde Exod. ca. 20. v. 7. You haue heard that it vvas sayd An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth Exod. 21. v. 24. You haue heard that it was sayd Thou shalt loue thy neyghbour and hate thy enemy Leuit. 19. v. 18. Where our Sauiour ioyning this later precept Thou shalt hate thy enemy with those other preceptes of the law written in the law as Thou shalt not kil Thou shalt not coÌ„mit aduoutrie He that diuorceth his vvife let him geue her a bil of diuorcement Thou shalt not coÌ„mit periurie Thou shalt performe thy othe An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth sheweth playnly that the pharisees taught this later to be the law of god as wel as the former therefore no marueil if they put it vnto the law with the rest as by christs words it seemeth most lykely they did And whether this were so or not certaine it is through the intolerable negligence and iniquitie of Priest Prince and People that in the tyme of Manasses not one peece or parcel but the whole law was lost for many yeres together as appeareth in the booke of Kinges at length as it were by great chaunce was it found out againe in the tyme of Iosias which crime our Sauiour for ought we reade neuer charged them with al. And therefore if likewise he neuer charged them with this it were no great marueil More corrupted might it be after Christ by how much that nation was more alienated froÌ„ the fauour of God And S. Hierom him selfe acknowledgeth some corruption howsoeuer in comparison he truely accompte the hebrew most pure and sincere in such sort and for such reason as hath bene touched And S. Iustinus the martyr in his coÌ„ference with Triphon talking of the very hebrew bibles not of the translation of the 70. only as some ansvvere Ex scripturis quae pro confessis apud vos habentur testimonia petam saith he I vvil bring proofes of that vvhich I say from those scriptures vvhich your selues acknovvledge for such of their corruption he geueth three examples One out of Esdras A secoÌ„d out of Ieremie A third out of the Psalmes Out of Esdras this Esdras spake vnto the people This Pascha is our sauiour refuge And if you shal persvvade your selues and this shal enter in to your hartes that you shal humble him vpon the vvood and after hope in him this place shal not be desolate for euer saith our lord of hostes But if you vvil not beleeue in him nor heare his preaching you shal become a scorne to the nations which place is in like maner cited by Lactantius Apud Esdram ita scriptum est Et dixit Esdras ad populum Hoc Pascha saluator nostâ—r est et refugium nostrum c. The place out of the prophete Ieremie is this Ex Ieremiae responsis haec verba recîderuÌ„t Ego vt agnus qui ad sacrificandum c. Out of Ieremies ansvveres this haue the Ievves cut avvay I as a lambe that am lead to be sacrificed and against me they deuised counsels sayng come let vs cast vvood vpon his bread and let vs take him avvay from the land of the liuing and let there be no more memorie of his name VVhich place containeth the prophetical foreshewing of a double veritie First of Christs crucifying vpon the crosse to which purpose the words are plaine Then of his true presence in the blessed sacrament for the Prophete calleth Christs natural body vpon the crosse by the name of bread in respect of Christ first promising the same body for euerlasting foode to his Christians in forme of bread and then after accomplishing the same promise by actual deliuery of the same body in such forme at the time of his last supper And the place is so expouÌ„ded by the auÌ„cient fathers as for example by S. Hierom and by Tertullian most euidently And Oecolampadius in his commentarie vpoÌ„ these wordes coÌ„fesseth it to haue bene the common sense and interpretation of the auncient and Primitiue church The third place out of the psalmes is this Ex nonagesimo quinto etiam Dauidis psalmo haec pauca verba recîderunt a ligno Cum enim scriptum esset c. Also from the nynetie and fifth psalme of Dauid they cut avvay these fevv vvords From the vvood For vvhereas it vvas vvritten Declare ye among the nations that our lord hath raigned from the vvord they leaft thus much only Declare ye among the nations that our lord hath raigned Of these three places thus defaced by the Iewes the first at this time is extant in no hebrew bibles nor to my knowledge in any greeke translation The second is in al the hebrew now corrected restored by the Christians For S. Iustine noteth that it was not cleane abolished out of al hebrew bibles the fault was but freshly committed in his daies Resectio istae saith he ex Hieremia ad huc in quibusdam exemplaribus quae in Iudaeorum asseruantur synagogis scripta reperitur Non enim ita diu est quod haec verba recîderunt This peece so cut of from Ieremie is as yet found vvritteÌ„ in some of those copies that are kept in the Ievves synagoge For it vvas but of late that they cut avvay these vvords By vvhich vvordes also it is euident that he meaneth the very hebrevv bibles not the translation of the 70. only vvhereas he so precisely nameth such as vvere preserued in the Ievves synagoges some of which retayned
order begone that is first particularly I wil write downe the argument which he fathereth vpon vs then the reason as we gaue it out by conference whereof the indifferent reader shal be able to iudge ether of our ignorance or his impudencie Thus he procedeth VVise men must needes much more abhorre from your religion vvhen they shal finde you thus to gather of the scriptures Christ and Peter vvalked on the vvaters ergo the body of Christ may be shut vp in a litle bread Our wordes are these VVhen not only Christ but by his povver Peter also vvalketh vpon the vvaters it is euident that he caÌ„ dispose of his ovvne body aboue nature coÌ„trarâ—e to the natural conditions thereof as to goe through a doore Iohn 20. to be in the compasse of a litle bread Ephiphan in Aâ—nchorato Let M. VVhitaker shew the reason why the one folovveth not as vvel as the other vvhy he vvil more abridge Christs povver and bynd him to the rules of nature in the Sacrament then in that miraculous entring to his disciples or vvalking on the vvaters Aâ—beit if he had aduisedly considered the note he might haue perceaued the same to coÌ„sist not so much in our collection as in the authoritie of Epiphanius vvho maketh the case of Christs being in the Sacrament so cleare that he accounteth M. VV. and his felovves for their infidelitie in that behalfe reprobates from the face of God and sure of eternal damnation Excidit a gratia et salute in the place before quoted Peter vvalked on the waters Ergo the Pope of Rome hath authoritie ouer al the church This application as S. Bernard and Catholike men vse it is no more reprouable then that of our Sauiour As Moyses exalted the serpent in the desert so must the sonne of man be exalted Or that of S. Paule Abraham had tvvo sonnes Ismael and Isaac one of the bond vvoman according to the flesh and one of the free vvoman by promise And as then he that vvas borne according to the flesh persecuted him that vvas after the spirite so novv also But for a man to folovv M. VV. example and make Christ or S. Paule to argue after his paterne thus The serpent vvas exalted in the desert Ergo Christ must be hanged on the crosse or Abrahams tvvo sonnes could not vvel agree but Ismael vexed Isaac Ergo the Ievves must vexe and persecute the Christians this in old time vvould haue bene accounted diuinitie fit for Lucian and such like scorners hovvsoeuer it be novv vsed of these nevv gospellers in great sadnes Thus staÌ„deth our note Peter saith S. Bernard vvalking vpon the vvaters as Christ did declared him self the only vicar of Christ vvhich should be ruler not ouer one people but ouer al. For many vvaters are many peoples Bernard lib. 2. de considerat ca. 8. See the place hovv he deduceth from Peter the like authoritie and iurisdiction to his successor the bisshop of Rome The good Samaritane said to the host vvhatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate I vvil restore it to the. ergo there are vvorkes of supererogation This argument foloweth wel inough and it is S. Augustins conclusion not ours This is the annotation S. Augustine saith that the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. according to this place did supererogate that is did more then he needed or vvas bound to do vvhen he might haue required al duties for preaching the Gospel but vvould not li. de op Monach. c. 5. VVhereof it coÌ„meth that the vvorkes vvhich vve doe more then precept be called vvâ—rkes of Supererogation and vvhereby it is also euident against the Protestants that there be such vvorkes See Optatus li. 6. cont Parm. hovv aptly he applyeth this parable to S. Paules couÌ„sel of virginitie 1 Cor. 7. as to a vvorke of supererogation Christ vvas transfigured ergo he geueth vs his body in forme of bread and vvine This is M. VV. scoffing not our arguing we only deduce hence that Christ may so do as not being bound to philosophical rules or conditions of nature which is cleare and manifest not that for this cause he doth so which is foolish and impertinent See the first argument Our wordes are Marke in this TraÌ„sfiguration many maruelous points As that he made not only his ovvne body vvhich then vvas mortal but also the bodies of Moyses and Elias the one dead the other to die for the time as it vvere immortal thereby to represent the state and glorie of his body and his Saintes in heauen By vvhich maruelous transfiguring of his body you may the lesse maruel that he caÌ„ exhibite his body vnder the forme of bread and vvine or othervvise as he list Saintes in heauen are like vnto Angels because they vse not mariage ergo they can heare the praiers of al men euery vvhere succour vs. This consequent consisteth of two partes the one is the falsificatioÌ„ of Christs reasoÌ„ the other is like falsificatioÌ„ of our argument drawen theÌ„ce For nether Christ said Saintes are like vnto Angels because they vse not mariage but contrarywise they vse not mariage because they are like vnto Angels nether inferre we their abilitie of hearing or succouring vs for that false cause vvhich M. VV. assigneth but because they are aduaunced vnto the state and condition of angels as sayth our Sauiour whose office â—s to succour and ayde men as in the scripaure we find euery where and the very English Communion booke doth teach and allow The difference is as great as if wheÌ„ one argueth thus N. is a man therefore he hath a head an other should inuert it after this sort N. hath a head therefore he is a man The first is true as any may perceaue the second is false as whereby an asse or a goose is proued to be a man This is our note As Christ proueth here that in heauen they nether mary nor are maried because there they shal be as Angels by the very same reason is proued that Saints may heare our praiers and helpe vs be they neere or farre of because the Angels do so and in euery moment are present vvhere they lâ—st and neede not to be neere vs vvhen they heare or helpe vs. Ioseph vvrapped Christs body in sindoâ— ergo Christs body on the altar must be layd in pure linnen I know not what M. W. disliketh in this argument whether the real presence of the same body on the altar which vvas in the sepulcher or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other Because ech part is warranted in the Annotation by sufficient authoritie I thinke it needeles to adde any more vntil I better know the pointe whereat he is offended This is the note This honour and duty done to Christs body being dead vvas maruelous grateful and meritorious And this vvrapping of it in cleane sindon may signifie by S. Hierom
Christs diuinitie 303. confessed by Luther 304. cōfessed by Lyra. 306. Item in Ieremie 307. confessed and proued by Lyra. 308.309 in Isai against Christs passion 310.311 confessed by Luther 312.313 item in the psalmes 355. folowed by the Tigurine Translators 358. and Bucer 357. item in Daniel 313. General reasons why the hebrue text can not be so sincere as the heretikes pretend 317.318 c. Many bookes of the Prophetes and histories of the old Testament lost pa. 317.318 Great difference in the hebrue by mistaking one letter for an other pa. 322.323.325 That the hebrue bibles are faultie confessed by Castalio pa. 326.327 by D. Humfrey 327. by Conradus Pellicanus 327. It is a Iewish opinion to thinke them altogether faultles 327. They haue great diuersitie of reading 331.332 somewhat wanteth in them 332.333 Although S. Hierom appealed from the latin to the hebrue yet the like reason is not now pa. 333.334 He confesseth and proueth the hebrue to be faultie 334.335.336 An argument commonly made for the puritie of the hebrue pa. 338.339 answered 339 340. c. S. Iustine proueth the Iewes to haue corrupted their bible pa. 341.342.343.344 Hebrue knowledge much aduaunced by Catholikes pa. 352.440 The hebrue tonge much subiect to cauilling pa. 431.432.433 See Rabbines A man must haue a setled faith before he confer greeke and hebrue textes pa. 441.442 best Hebritians are not best Christians pa. 441. our first Apostles planted perfite christianitie without hebrue pa. 345. Heretikes generally geuen to scorning pa. 511. S. Hierom condemned as ignorant of al diuinitie pa. 371. I S. Iames epistle refused by Luther Lutherans Zuinglians pa. 8.9.10.11.12 et 17.22.23 Caluin mangleth it 288.289 M. Ievvels challenge pa. 133.138 The true image thereof 133. vsque ad 138. It is grounded vpon no reason or learning 138.139.140.141 It cōtaineth in effect only three articles the primacie of the Sea Apostolike the real presence and the sacrifice 133.136.137.138 See of them in their seueral places M. Ievvels passing vanitie in bragging and lying pa. 460. his maner of ansvvering D. Harding pref 75.76 Reuerence done to the name of Iesus pa. 513.514.515 The Ievves corrupt the text of scripture pa. 304. in despite of Christians 314.329 negligent in conseruing their scriptures 328.329 their malice against the Sea of Rome 329.330 Very probable that Christ reprehended them for corrupting the scripture 339. See Hebrue S. Iohn Baptist liued a monastical life pa. 492. K That the vvise men vvhich came to worship Christ were kings pa. 485. vsque ad 489. that they vvere three 489. 490. their names 490.491 L S. Lukes gospel called in question pa. 27.28.29.32 Luthers vvorkes altered and corrupted by the Lutherans pa. 5 6.13 by the Caluinists 7. He denieth S. Iames epistle p. 11. his immoderate bragging 42. his extreme hatred of the Sacramentaries 43.44.45.46 his iudgment of their religion 52.53.483 he refuseth their bibles 45. singularly honoured by the English church 18.191 preferred by M. W. before al doctors 47. most absurdly 48.50 He derideth the Zuinglians fond arguments 258. Luther a shameful corrupter of scripture 377.378 Lucians true histories praef pa. 4.5 M Heretical martyrs damned pa. 117. S. Matthevv vvrote his gospel in hebrue pa. 290. the protestants hold the greeke translatiō more autentical 291. The protestants reason against the Machabees is as forcible against S. Luke S. Paul 506.507.508 Melchisedech did sacrifice pa. 57. graūted by M. W. denied by al other protestants pa. 58.59.60 acknovvleged by the auncient fathers 60. vvhy not expressed by the Apostle 61.537 c. Melanchthon for the real presence pa. 190. Merite of vvorkes See in Heauen and vvorkes N Noueltie of vvords daungerous in Christian religion pa. 266.267 exemplified 268.269 it induceth contempt of faith 270. and leadeth to paganisme 276.277.278 O Only faith See Faith P Penance what it is by the Protestants doctrine 86.90.91 It reiecteth external workes of fasting discipline ibid. which are required by the scripture 87.88.89 90. by S. Cypian and the primitiue church 124.125 the Catholike doctrine touching the value of them 92. the Protestantes contradictory argument against them 91. 93.94 S. Peters being at Roome denyed most absurdly pa. 130.131.132 his primacie 498.510 Pilgrimage to holy places pa. 502. 503.512.513 Primacie of the Romane Sea proued euidently by those fathers whom M. Iewel nameth his maisters to the contrary pa. 143. by Anacletus and Xystus 143.144 by S. Leo 146 147. S. Leo gouerneth in al partes of Christēdom 147.148.149 his authoritie ouer the bishop of Constantinople 148. he summoneth general Councels 152. he is head of them 153. no lawful Councel without his approbation 152. This primacie is grounded vpon Christes words and the Apostles ordinance 143.144.153 S. Gregorie accompteth the Romane Church head of al other pa. 156.158 his authoritie ouer the bishop of Constantinople 156. ouer the bishops of Europe Asia and Africa 156.157 158.162.163 The Protestants common obiection taken out of S. Gregorie answered pa. 159.160.161.162 the name vniuersal in what sort and sense disliked by S. Gregorie pa. 160.161.163 Priestes properly so called were appointed by Christ pa. 64. S. Austin such a priest 64.65.66 So was S. Leo and S. Hierom. 69. The church of Christ was neuer ruled but by such priests 67.68.69 Such were the orderers of our Ecclesiastical state and builders of our churches in England 68. S. Paules discourse of Christs eternall priesthod Hebr. 7. maketh nothing against the priesthod of the church pag. 74. vsque ad 79. The name of Protestants praef pa. 88.90 It agreeth not properly to our English gospellers ibi In their faith there is no stay or certaintie praef pa. 7.24.37 Exemplified by the Supremacie of princes ibid 9.10 by baptisme 11.12 Confirmation 13. Christs descending into hel 14. Christs diuinitie 14.15 Rebellion against princes 15.16 Regimēt of women 18. great difference in their Communion bookes 11.12.13 the diuers chaunges of religion in England since the time of schisme 20.21.22 In the Protestants vvriting and disputing there is no ground pref pa. 8. exemplified by their refusal of scriptures ibid. pa. 26. Apostolical Traditions and general Councels ibi Auncient fathers 27. Apostles Doctors of their owne 28.29.30 Martirs and whole Churches of their owne 30.31.32 They reduce al to priuate fansie 35.36.37.38 They passe the auncient heretikes in denial of al things pa. 38.39 their manifold Popes 33.34 The forefathers of the Protestants church pa. 349. of whom they must looke for the true scripture 348.351 a true confession of a principal protestant 407. their churches voyd of al truth and knowledge 407.408 they perswade Atheisme by scripture 408.409 al their preaching and writing tendeth therevnto 410.411.428 their vaunting of the cleare light of the gospel sensibly refuted 408. The Protestants maner of ansvvering the Catholikes pag. 412. They deny al Doctors 413. They deny sundry partes of scripture 413.414 They pretend the greeke 415. They falsely translate the greeke 416. They refuse the ordinary sense of the greeke
vvorst of al other 381.382.383.384 he then most busily corrupteth scripture vvhen it is most to the dishonour of Christ 384.385 M. W. inuectiue against the late Catholike translation of the new Testament 444. it is mere histrionical 445.446.448 in condemning it he reproueth himself 447.454.455 the hypocrisie of his accusation 449.450 Notable bragging and lying 459.460.461 how weakely he iustifieth his inuectiue 462.463 he obiecteth only two faults 263.264 both false and if they were true of no importance 464.470.472.473 What they are in particular 464. his vnconscionable dealing 472.473 What is principally requisite in a Translator of scripture pa. 371.372.375 Translations more autentical then the original pa. 290.291.306 V Of the name Vniuersaliâ— See Primacie W Arguments that Good vvorkes are not the cause of saluation pa. 95. refuted at large 99.100.101 c. Good vvorkes in Christians are cause of saluation pa. 99.100 vsque ad 106. 418.421.422.423 as euil workes are cause of damnation 104.105.106.107 See Heauen Good vvorkes are in no respect necessary to saluation by the Protestants doctrine pa. 110.111.113 their argumentes prouing the same 112.113 The fathers doctrine touching good vvorkes set downe by M. W. pa. 115. the wickednes thereof 116.118.119 they are therefore condemned by Luther as verie Iewes 120.121.122 M.W. notable wrangling pa. 14.15 his manifold ouersights 97.98 he vnderstandeth not the Protestants doctrine of only faith 109. he commonly contradicteth him self 23.25.114.115.123.126.319 he proueth the English ministers to be Antichrists for sayng Communion 127.128 how fondly he answereth a place of S. Chrysost 204.206.211.212 his straunge assertion that only the hebrue text is scripture 286.287 Refuted 287.288.289 he calleth S. Austin a Sorbonist for his doctrine touching the value of good workes p. 543.545.546 and by like reason al the Apostles and Prophetes pag. 545.546 his arrogancie in condemning al doctors 495.496 et praef pag. 44.45 The summe of his answering D. Sanders consisteth partly in preferring him self before al other pref pa. 42. ad 51. partly in leauing out the substance of D.S. arguments ibid. pa. 75. vsque ad 81. Z Zuinglius the Apostle of the English church pref pa. 89.90 Zuinglians notable lyers pag. 525.526.555 and braggers 554. their maner of writing pref pa. 81.82 The faultes correct thus Pa. 4 linea 13. for charged reade charging Ibidem in many copies wanteth a marginal note Contra Campian pag. 11. Pa. 41 li. 26. Estaticus reade Ecstaticus Pa. 85. lin 6. Christ reade Christes Pa. 145. lin 18. forth reade forth Pa. 195. l. 17. argumenr reade argument Pa. 328. li. 8. for the two hebrew letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where also in some few examples the later hebrue word is diuided which should be ioyned Some other faultes there are of like qualitie especially of one letter for an other as s for f and r for t and in one place of some copies is vvhich for vvhich is al which considering the ordinarie difficulties of printing where straungers are the workers coÌ„positors correctors besides other extraordinarie mishaps I trust the Reader of his curtesie wil easely pardon Whom I request if by reading hereof he fynde ought for the encrease of his faith towardes Christ and his Church Catholike euen for loue of the same Christ and Church to help me with his prayer FINIS Contra Sand. pa. 5. in fine Ib. pa. 6. in principio M.W. knoweth not wel what that Antichrist is against whom he writeth Lucian de vera historia lib. 1. Cyclades Lucians historical verities the Protestants Euangelical verities are of like nature and probabilitie Much good time spent in reading or refuting heretical bookes 1. Tim. 6. Tertul. de praescript Heretikes are generally proude and ignoraÌ„t 2. Timoth. 6. v. 4. W. contra Sand. pag. 250. See after chap. 7. pag. 130.131 Whit. contra Camp pag. 154. Ibi pag. 153. Fulke con Mart. pag. 64 65. in sine Supra pa. 4. A strange proposition to say the church is Antichrist In the Protestants faith there is no cercertaintie In their writing and disputing there is no ground That the Protestantes haue no certaine fayth The Prince supreme head of the church The Prince not supreme head of the church A declaration of the iust c. Printed by special commaundement and licence â—no â—532 a pag. 411. Cart. in his second reply b 412. c 413. d 414. Ibi. 419 Communion booke in the forme of publike baptisme Baptisme remitteth sinnes Baptisme remitteth not sinnes Tower disputatioÌ„ the second day Priuate baptisme allowed Priuate baptisme disallowed M. W. contra Sander pag. 276.278 Ficta quaedam necessitas Great difference and coÌ„trarietie in the Communion bookes The sacrameÌ„t of confirmation admitted Refused T.C. pa. 174 apud Whitg pag. 785. Christ descended into hel Christ descended not into hel Carlile Caluin Instit aedit anno 1553. ca. 7 ¶ 28. et in postre aeditione l. 2. c 16. ¶ 9. Christs diuinitie graunted Christs diuinitie denyed M. Whit. contra Campian pag. 25.2.153.154 Sleid. Coâ—â— 17. an 1546. Rebellion against princes iustified and commended Ibidem lib. 8. an 1531. fol. 124. Ibid. lib. 22. an 1550. fol. 411. Sleid. li. 18 anno 1546 fol. 320. Beza ad D. Elizabeth Angl. Regi in praefat noui testament aedit 1565. Fox Actes and monumentes pa. 250.255.257 Ibi. pa. 251.252 a pa. 250. ad 260. Vbi supra pag. 250. Ibi. pag. 260 Gilbie Goodman c. WomeÌ„ may beare no rule ouer men in matters temporal The boâ—kes were pâ—inted at Geneua the yere 1558. yere 1559. Women may beare rule ouer men in al matters temporal and spiritual The Communion booke in the beginning before morning praier Copes and such like ornaments approued CoÌ„demned General chaunges and contrarieties in faith Foâ— actes monumeÌ„tes pag. 586. Real presence CommunioÌ„ in one kynd Mariage of priests vnlawful Vowes of chastitie Priuate masse Auricular confession These articles were according to the law of God in king Henries time Ibi. pag 587 The same articles were contrarie to the law of God in king Edwards time Fox vbi su in historia Cranmeri pag. 1473. A realme pitifully ordered where a chyld of 9 yeres old may by order of law ouerthrow al religion Chaunge vpoÌ„ chauÌ„ge D. Whitg Defensâ—a pa. 31. vsque ad 51. Ibi. pag. 178 Infinite difference betwene our English protestants and those of other nations Whit. Def. Tract 1. p. 74 A rule most assured Groundes or heads of disputation In the protestants writing or disputing there is no grouÌ„d Scripture denyed Whit. contra Camp pag. 17. Traditions of the Apostles denyed General Councels denyed T.C. pag. 16. apud D. Wh. Tract 2. p. 95 Of this see more chap. 3.5.7.17 after in the praeface Auncient doctors of the Catholike Church denyed Whit. coÌ„tra Sand. pa. 92. then we perceaue to be agreable to scripture Si vel intogrum patruÌ„ Senatum in nos commoueris D.
the Sacramentaries diuinitie Iew. defeÌ„ce of the Apolog parte 4 cap. 4. ¶ â— M. W. argument answered at large by Luther Luth. To. 7. defens verboruÌ„ coenae fol 388. Ibid. fo 390. The Sacramentarie heresie the hye way to infidelity denyal of al fayth 1 bid fo 391. The vnequal dealiÌ„g of the Sacramentaries in alleaging the fathers Ibid. fo 397 Note how deepely M. W. argumeÌ„t wayghed with Luther Histrio aut erro Macho metanus Frigidae nugae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Iew. challeng touching the real preseÌ„ce artic 5. refuted by martyrs Confessors doctors of his owne religion 2. Tim. 4. pag. 11. Mat. 26. v. 11 Ciril in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 13. To search by reason how Christ is present in the B. Sacrament is to deny al scripture Ciril in Ioan. lib. 10. cap 13. Iew. art ◠¶ 10. In M.W. translation fo 414.415 Martir defens ad obiect Gard. parte 4. pa. 724. pag. 11. Damascene Damascene lib 4. de orthodoxa fide c. 14. Few of the auncient fathers argue more vehemently and directly against M. W. heresie argument prouing the same then S. Ciril and Damascene whom he citeth pag. 11. Iewel art 6. ¶ 4.5 Ibid. art 10. ¶ 2. 1. Cor. 12. v. 27. Ephes 5. v. 23. A commentarie cleane against the text Chrisost homil 2. ad pop Antio in fine The great difference betwene Elias leauing his maÌ„tel to Elizeus and Christ leauing his flesh to vs. Chrisost in 1. Cor. ca. 10. hom 24. The true opinioÌ„ of the Zuinglians touching their Supper or Communion Zuing. tom 2. lib. de vera falsa relig c. de Eucharist fol. 212. Ibid. in exegesi ad Lutherum fol. 362.363 Symbola taÌ„tum esse the Sacrament only a figure Ibi. ad Luth. Confes responsio duae fo 435. ad Matth. Rutling fo 155 ad Theob Billica 261. The Sacrament nothing out bread Ibi. respons duae ad Lutherum fol. 477. Signa The Sacrament is no more the body of Christ then a painted scutchion is the Quene of England or kinge of Fraunce Beza in epi. theologicis epist 1. How aptly M. W. answere and S. Christ text matche together M. W. quite peruerteth S. Chrisost sense and sentence Chrisost in hoc loco zuing to 2. li. de peccato origin fo 121. et ibid. respon ad D. Baltazarem fo 105. 4. Regum 2. v. 14. Chrisos lib. 3. de sacerdotio paulò post initium The excellency of the priesthode of the new Testament aboue that of the old 2. Cor. 3. Intingi rubefieri Pag. 12. A bad way to make theÌ„ afrayde if they vniuersally knew beleeued the coÌ„trary We see Christ offered in the church Chrysost in 1. Cor 10. hom 24. Genes 32. ver 30. Exod. 24. ver 9. 3. Reg. 22. ver 19. Esa 6. v. 1. Ioan 9. v. 38 Ioan. 1. v. 18. 1 Tim. 6. v. 16. Exod. 33. vers 20. 2. Cor. 11. Luth. Tom. 7 serm de Eucharistia fo 337. Ibid. fo 335. the zuingliaÌ„ CommunioÌ„ plaine bakers bread Infidels and Apostataes forefathers of the Protestants in mocking scorning the Sacrament Kemnit in exam conc Trident. coÌ„tra canones de Eucharistia Calu. de â—oena Domini inter opuscula Ioan. 1. v. 32. The Sacrament in what sort a figure The ProtestaÌ„ts by their analogie of faith of euery place of scripture or doctor conclude what they lyst Ioan. 3. Exod. 12. Luther to 7. defens verborum coenae fo 386. Impossible to interpret S. Chrysost of the English Communion supra pa. â—7 M. Iewels 17. article The 5. artie The 6. artie True sacrifice in the church Chryso vbi supra Pag. 12. insutos in culcum allideret Vide orat Pet. Frar coÌ„tra sectarios item epist Bezae 41. Writers against Beza 1. Tim. 4. v. 2. The point of this controuersy wel to be marked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in Mat. 26. ver 28. Mar. 14. v. 24 Rom. 9. Discou ca. 1 numb 38. c. 17. num 10. See before cap. 2. The real presence manifestly proued by S. Luke Beza in Luc. 22. v. 10. Luc. 19. v. 40 M.W. arguing against the text of S. Luke Pag. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The real presence Chris in 1. Cor. 10. hom 24. Leo serm 11 de pass The iust bloud is the cup which S. Luke meÌ„tioneth Many faultes committed by M.W. in his defence of Beza Esa 19. v. 14. The Protestants by their example practise make the scripture more vncertaine and mutable then any wethercock Iohn 1. v. 29 Chriso to 3. serm de â—rinâ—tate Gen. 19. v. 24. Victor de persequutione Vandalic li. 2. in sine Psal 66. Ephes 4. 7.5 â— 2. Co. 10. v. â— If other heretikes should do as Beza geueth them example within a short tyme we should haue a straÌ„ge Bible Actor 2. Brentius the Vbiquitaries haue written many bookes against the artiâ—le of Chrâ—sts Ascension One or other fatherâ— reading is no warrant for vs to alter the text of scripture Discou pag. 261. nu 1â— Whit. pa. 13. Luc. 22. v. 20 Great difference betwene a Catholike reading indifferently one way or other and an heretike choosing precisely one only way most seruing his herefie Tit. 3. ver 5. In this sort S. Peter 1. epist c. 2. v. 6 citeth a place out of Esai 28. v. 16 Whit. cont Cam. pa. 135 Luke 1. v. 35 Bezaes corruption inexcusable for ought M. W. ether hath said or can say Genes 3. Wh. pag. 23. M.W. argument The vanitie thereof Gal. 2. v. 19. Rom. 6. v. 13 See before pag. 220. Infinite difference betwene the figure of the Catholikes and that of the heretikes Carolost exposition of Christes words hoc est corpus meum Apol. Angl part 4. ca. 4. ¶ 2. Zuing. tom 2. in epist ad Matth. Rutlin de coena fol. 255. Scripture applied by heretikes to proue any thing be it neuer so absurd Luther tom 7. defensio verboruÌ„ coen fo 411. Luth. sage counsel to the Sacramentaries in this case Beza in Luc. 2â— vers 20. Luther vbi supra fo 411 Luther thought it vnpossible that the SacrameÌ„taries would euer grow to such absurditie as now they defend A good rule Ibid. Basil in ethic reg â—1 cap. 4. Gabrielis Fabricii responsio ad Bezam Vezeliam Eceboliam fol. 17. Bezaes maner in correcting the testament Whit. pa. 14. Ibid. L. Humfred in vita Iuelli pag. 145.146 c. The Protestants idolaters Examples wherein the Protestants may consider their owne fault in prophaning ecclesiastical word◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supra videre to suruey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The abuse of ecclesiastical words the ruine of al religion Mat. 23. v. 24 Pag. 15. Esa 48. v. 4. To approue the English translations is to approue plain Atheisme deny God Discou ca. â— nu 1.2.3.4 Protestantâ—diuines against the English traÌ„slations Castal defens contra Bezam pag. 189. Illyric in Clau. part 1. in verbo infernus
into the right way as is the dutie of Christians but only to keepe mens heads in musing expectation of new bookes to make them mispend their time to keepe the printers occupied and as it were to walke and talke on a stage for no other purpose but to passe away the time This is truly to be Carnifex papiri A murderer of paper as Illyricus cōmonly calleth the Zuinglians this is in deede to be Miserabilis librifex A miserable bookevvright as Luther malapertly nameth king Henry a learned prince and of famous memory This is thoroughly to approue and iustifie that which Luther in the beginning sentenced against Zuinglius and Oecolampadius the fathers of the Sacramentarie Gospel vvhich frō thē as it may seeme hath descended to their posteritie Isti boni spiritus saith he si parū admodū rethoricantur c. These good sacramētarie sprites if they can a litle play the Rhetocians though they touch not any one argument yet thinke they of them selues that they haue ansvvered the matter passing vvel sayd much to the purpose et putant causam suam consistere in scriptione multorum librorū et in cōmaculatione pap ri and they suppose that their cause stādeth in vvriting of many bookes blotting of much paper And no doubt it proceeded of some like crafte that M.W. against vs our English translation of the Testament wrote his reprehension in latin to the end pardy that nether our common countrimen vnderstanding only the English should know those faultes which he reproueth in latin nor straūgers vnderstāding only his latin know how iustly he refelleth that which was written in English Whereby notwithstanding he might obtayne thus much that both sortes should heare tel of some errors noted and refuted but what they were and how wel how truly and substantially the refutation was made nether the one nor the other should be able to examine much lesse to iudge the rest that vnderstand both tonges vvho only may espie his vniust accusations defaultes and ignorances being not so many nor alwaies so diligent nor at any time so free as to compare his latin pretensed reprofe vvith the truth set dovvne in English For so much as the aduersaries novv against their old pretense of honoring and allovving holy scriptures cruelly punish the readers and keepers of them spoile men of the nevv Testament it self the translation and notes vvhereof they shal neuer be able to reproue as vve inuincibly to the eternal shame of heresie haue reproued theirs And yet these men that vvil not suffer our translation to be read of such as vnderstand it with fayned hypocrisie protest that it nothing harmeth their cause and wish that straungers could reade it also These Christian reader are the false fleightes of lying of dissembling of bragging of remouing groundes of disputation of denying sundry principal partes of faith of continual altering their faith of preferring thē selues before al men of taking to them selues in particular the supreme iudgement both of al scriptures the true sense thereof these be the difficulties which may dissuade and withdraw any man from writing or disputing against such sophistical wranglers yet because we may not vpō any loth somnes in our owne behalfe or lost labour in respect of thē omit to do good to others whō we may any waye profite here thou hast so much as appertaineth to the defence of the Discouerie of the Translation and Annotations of the new testament The rest shal folow hereafter if those who haue the regiment of my life studies shal thinke the tyme not euil spent in refelling so vnseemely so vnprobable and vnchristian an argument AN ADVERTISMENT TO THE READER WHEREAS of late in the Tower disputations we haue seene that learned and holy man F. Campian so much disgraced both in priuate speach and publike writing because in citing a place of Luther touching S. Iames epistle he missed the print wherin the place was to be founde the later editions of his workes differing notably from the former which chopping chaunging is cōmon to the most heretical writers of our time for feare of like inconuenience I haue thought it good amongst many to note the print of certaine bookes which in this treatise are oftē times alleaged Know thou therefore Christiā reader that in citing Luther I alwaies meane the print of Wittēberg set forth by Melanch in diuers yeres the second Tome the yere 1551. the fift 1554. the seuenth 1557. In citing Zuinglius I meane his workes as they were set forth after his death by his sonne in law Rodolphus without name of place or printer M. Foxes Actes and Monumentes I vnderstād as they were printed the yere 1563 by Iohn Day Bezaes notes vpon the new testament I meane as they were printed at Geneua the yere 1556. Sleidan I cite after the printe of Strasburg the yere 1566. Castalios bible after the printe of Basile the yere 1556. Caluins Institutions as he last of al digested them into bookes and chapters and printed them at Geneua Thus generally except I note otherwise in the margent Other bookes which haue not so much varietie although some be in more prints then one be they latin or english I commonly note not only according to the chapter but also according to the page or leafe as I do also the forenamed that thou maist with so much the more facilitie finde out the places quoted and so better iudge of the matter rreated Next whereas some are offended with vs for that in writing or speaking of them we vse the names of Sacramentaries Zuinglians or Caluinistes Puritanes and Parlament Protestantes which they say are odious nicknames found out of vs and therefore one of their writers of late chargeth vs in speaking of them to vse no other names then Christians and Catholikes for our discharge herein thus much I must signifie vnto thee that if ether truth learning would beare vs vsing such termes as they require or any reader ether Catholike or Protestant vnderstand vs we would most gladly for loue of the truth and their contentation so speake and write But now consider thou how intolerably such speaches would soūd in the eares of any indifferent reader I haue occasion sometimes to produce Luther writing Contra fanaticos Sacramētariorū spiritus against the fanatical spirites of the Sacramentaries sometimes Contra Zuinglium et discipulos eius against Zuinglius his disciples sometime D. Whitgift against the Puritanes for so he calleth them sometimes the Puritanes against him and such as maintaine the Cōmunion booke and religion of England in such sort and so far forth as is approued by Acte of parlament Now citing these writers how can we cite them without a lie if we cited them in other wordes then themselues vse If I said Luther in his booke against the fanatical spirites of the Christians Catholikes or D. VVhitg in his Defense against the
Christians and Catholikes who could ether perceaue what I meant or who would not iudge that I did them great iniury in making them to write against Christians which none do but Iewes Turkes or against Catholikes vvhich none do but heretikes and Apostataes And marueil it is that the name of Protestātes is novv grovven into so great dislike vvhich hitherto hath bene so magnified in bookes pulpits and ordinarie phrase of talke and vvhich M. Fox in his huge volume of Actes and Monumentes alvvayes vseth as most proper to their gospel maketh it opposite sometimes to Papistes somtimes to Catholikes which he vseth for one But the truth is those that professe the English faith and religion ether haue no name at al to be knovven by but the common name of heretikes vvhich is to general and vvould be to odious or their most propre name is Zuinglians or Sacramentaries For to cal them Catholikes and Christians besides that it is false and ridiculous and may vvith like probabilitie be chalenged of euery other kind of secte Lutheran Brentian Arrian Puritan besides that their greatest vvriters mocke and scorne at the name Catholike as Popish and superstitious besides this I say it expresseth not that particular religion in vvhich they differre from the rest of the Christian vvorld for vvhich vve vvrite against them and for vvhich the Lutheranes oppose thē selues against them and vvhich by their name ought specially to be signified The name of Protestantes which commonly they vsurpe is wrongfully chalenged of them as which duely only belongeth to the Lutheranes who for opposing them selues against the decrees of the Empyre Emperour touching Catholike religion and protesting that they would stand in defence of their owne according to the Confession exhibited at Auspurg were first for their so doing and protesting named Protestantes as much to say as men that stood and protested against the Catholike faith for their priuate in such sort as hath bene noted From which Confession of theirs as likewise from al other communion those of the English religion vvere by the name of Zuinglians expresly excluded And briefly that no other name can be duely applied vnto them besides the name of Zuinglians by this reason it may playnely appeare When they brake from the rest of the Christian vvorld vvhich they say vvas couered vvith palpable darkenes and betooke them selues to that light of the gospel vvhereof novv they so much brag and boast vvho vvas their maister ringleader and Apostle therein but Huldericus Zuinglius So much they vvrite most euidently in the Apologie of their English church In the middest of that darknes say they those most excellent men Martin Luther and Hulderike Zuinglius sent from God to illuminate the vvhole vvorld first came to the Gospel Missi à Deo ad illustrandum terrarum orbem primū accesserunt ad Euangelium Now whereas them selues al other name those gospellers which folow Luthers sense and interpretation by the name of Lutherans they vvho prefer Zuinglius before Luther and professe them selues to haue receaued the light of the Gospel from him hovv should they be called but Zuinglians not only for like reason vvhich hath bene vsed in al times and ages from the first beginning of the primitiue Church vvhere the Secte-maisters haue geuen appellation to their after-commers as in Marcion Valentinus Carpocrates Nouatus the rest but much more and especially because them selues chalenge him for their maister in their particular faith and religion And therefore it can not be avoided but as Luthers scholers are called Lutherans so Zuinglius disciples ought of like right to be called Zuinglians And to end this quarel our aduersaries them selues who haue written of these matters shal serue to quite vs of al fault M. Fox in his storie when soeuer he speaketh of that sect vvhich him self best-liked ordinarily calleth them sometime Protestants sometime Hussites sometime at large men forward in promoting the proceedings of the gospel sometime more briefly Gospellers And writing precisely of the diuision betvvene Luther and Zuinglius he saith VVith Luther in the opinion of the Sacrament consented the Saxons vvith the other side of Zuinglius vvent the Heluetians and as time did grow so the diuision of these opinions increased in sides and spread in farther realmes and countries the one part being called of Luther Lutherans the other hauing the name of Sacramentaries So in Sleidan vve haue very common the name of Zuinglians and Sacramentaries as likewise he calleth the other part Lutherans and their religion Lutheranisme and euen so they termed them selues It were tedious to iustifie this out of Luther Zuinglius especially al historigraphers of our age And in truth it is much like as if a man should light a candle at noone-tide Wherefore in this we must desyre our aduersaries to beare with vs if we speake not only as al Catholikes but as al Protestants as Luther as Sleidan as M. Fox as generally al writers in their bookes and volumes are accustomed to speake and as the world of thē hath learned and as the aduersaries them selues by al reason induce vs to speake and as of necessitie we must speake if we wil speake and be vnderstoode Touching any other fault I shal be ready ether to defēd it or to correct it to correct it if it be noted against me iustly to defend it if it be obiected vndeseruedly this I protest not only in words as cōmonly do al Protestantes but in simplicitie of truth as meaning to performe the same And therefore willingly I submit what so euer I haue written to the iudgment of al Catholikes symply and with out exception to whom iudgment of these matters appertaineth to the iudgment of al Protestants euen of M. W. him selfe so far furth as he shal geue censure of it and refel it by the written word of God expounded according to the analogie of faith A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS Chap. I. Of Luthers contemning S. Iames his Epistle and calling it stramineam Pag. 1. Chap. II. Of the Canonical scriptures and that the English cleargie in accepting some and refusing others are lead by no learning or diuinitie but by mere opinion fantasie Pa. 19. Chap. III. How M.W. defendeth Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before al auncient fathers and Doctors Pag. 42. Chap. IIII. Of priesthod and the sacrifice continued after Christ in the state of the new testament and that it derogateth nothing from Christ Pa. 56. Chap. V. Of Penance and the value of good workes touching iustificatiō and life eternal Pag. 82. Chap. VI. How vnreasonably M.W. behaueth him self in reprouing and approuing the auncient fathers for their doctrine touching good workes Pag. 114. Chap. VII Of M. Iewels challenge renewed by M. W. and the vanitie and falshod thereof Pag. 129. Chap. VIII Of Beza corruptly trāslating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the real presence Pag. 169.