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
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
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
question Elizeus might haue and had no doubt his minde in heauen with Elias by your commentarie and sense far greater was the facte of Elias then that of Christ For the cloke was a far better and more liuely figure of Elias then youre bread and wine is of Christ By it Elizeus receaued greate grace strength as writeth S. Chrisostome as by the which he fought agaynst the deuill and vanquished him That your bread should geue any grace it is agaynst your whole doctrine and Zuinglius laboureth to proue it at large in sundrie places callinge it papisticall to say that any sacrament euen baptisme doth aliquid momenti conferre ad sanctificationem aut remissionem peccatorum profite any iote to sanctifie or take avvay synne Elizeus by that cloke wrought straunge miracles so did you by your figuratiue bread neuer nor neuer shall so longe as the worlde standeth Briefly whereas Elizeus cloke cariynge with it such vertue and power was a thing surmounting the abilitie and reach of man and could not be done but by the omnipotencie of god your bread being nothing but a signe or banner as it were a may-pole or token of a tauerne by Zuinglius his owne confession the king of Fraunce or Spaine can make ten thousande as good And the truth is they can make much better because theirs do no harme wheras yours leade men the hye way to damnatioÌ„ Wherefore youre answere to this place of S. Chrisostome is to to fond and childish And hereby we may haue a gesse how substanciallye you are like to deale with the next which is taken out of the same father I must needes write it doune somewhat at large for the readers better vnderstanding of vs both It is in his thirde booke de sacerdotio where he setteth forth the high estate of the priestes of the new Testament and that acte wherein priesthode especiallye consisteth that is the sacrifice thus he writeth This priesthode it selfe is exercised in earth but is to be referred to the order and revv of thinges celestiall and that for good reason because no mortall man no angell no archangell no creature but the holy Ghost him self framed this order Terrible vvere the thinges dreadfull vvhich vvere before the tyme of grace in the lavv of Moyses as vvere the litle bells pomegranats pretious stones in the breast of the prieste the mitre golden plate sancta sanctorum c. But if a man consider these thinges vvhich the tyme of grace hath brought to vs he vvil iudge all those thinges vvhich I called terrible and dreadfull to be but light and though glorious yet not comparable vvith the glorie of the nevv testament as S. Paule saith This being laide before as it were a preface or preparatiue to that which foloweth he then coÌ„meth to that place out of which M. W. culleth certaine wordes For sayth he vvhen thou seest our Lord sacrificed and the prieste earnestlie intent to the sacrifice and pouring out his prayers and the people about him imparted and made red vvith that pretious bloud thinkest thou thy self to conuerse amongest mortall men and remaine on the earth And immediatly ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem ô miracle ô singular goodnes of God he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the self same moment of tyme is handled vvith all mens handes and deliuereth him self to those that vvill receaue and imbrace him and this is done playnlie in the sight of all men vvithout any deceate or illusion Of this place M. Martin inferreth that M.W. reasoning Christ is in heauen ergo not in the Sacramet is wicked refuted by the old fathers But M.W. replyeth no. And I vvil geue you your ansvvere sayth he out of the same place for here Chrysostome affirmeth that vve see our Lord sacrificed in the supper and the people imparted and made red vvith the bloud and that this is done in the open sight of all that are presente But vvho seeth ether our Lord truâ—y sacrificed or one droppe of bloud vvith vvhich the people are made red so as all see it as Chrisostome vvriteth Therefore as vve see Christ sacrificed and the people embrued vvith his bloud so vve receaue him in our handes In these vvordes Chrysostome vvould both amplifie the dignitie of priestes vnto vvhom Christ gaue povver to minister the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud and make the people afrayde that they vvhich come to this supper should bring vvith them godlie and religious myndes as though they should take Christ him selfe in their handes The substance of the answere is this Chrysostome in the same place sayth we see Christ offered which in truth is not so but by a figuratiue speach therefore when he saith Christ is in heauen and in the Sacrament it is not simplie true but by like phrase and figure But whereunto then tende al these great wordes and perswasions of this father to honour the priests office and make the people afrayed and were there priestes in the church in those days No. but by priestes you must vnderstand mâ—nisters and then a simili by the sacrifice he speaketh of that is the masse you must vnderstand the CommunioÌ„ that is by Catholike relâ—gion you must vnderstande heresie and by light darkâ—es But I wil go thorough the branches of this answere in order First whereas you make that a thing most assured and certaine that no man seeth Christ offered except you meane in your English supper you are greatly deceaued For in the church Catholike we see Christ offered and that not in phrase of speach only as the protestaÌ„ts may be said to do iniurie to Christ when they abuse his image but in veritie and truth of doctrine And S. Chrysostome with the rest of the fathers neuer thought or spake otherwise How oft hath S. Chrisostome quâ—d summo honore dignum est id tibi â—n terra â—stendam That vvhich deserueth most honor that vvil I shevv thee on earth and in the same place The royal body of Christ is in heaueÌ„ vvhich novv in earth is set before thee to be seene I shevv vnto thee not angels not archangels not heauens not heauen of heauens but I shevv thee the verie Lord him selfe of al these Perceauest thou not hovv not only thou seest in earth and touchest but receauest also the soueraine and principall thing that is And in the same place This body vvhich thou seest on the altar the vvise men adored in the manger But it were tedious to note out such places which are common in euery booke This rather I would wishe M. W. to vnderstand that where it hath pleased God in certaine creatures to exhibite his presence after a more special and singular sort there in a more special and singular maner truely we may ought to beleeue that we see our Lord. God is by essence power and operation present in euerie creature yet in seing a
glosse vpon the three first Euangelistes set forth the yere 1549. and 1554. but novv of late the Geneuians especially Theodorus Beza haue acknovvleged and mended this error how it is mended I know not but sure I am in the text of any greeke copie I could neuer yet for it and Beza in his mending doth shew so notable a tricke of an Anabaptist as may be In the annotations of his testament he writeth of this peece wel and christianly thus Exte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of thee so I found it vvritten in some bookes of the old edition and in the booke of Complutum and in many places of Epiphanius And Athanasius in hâ—s epistle to Epictetus bishop of Corinth shevveth that so vve must reade For thus vvriteth he The Angel said not simply that vvhich shalbe be borne in thee but of thee that vve should beleeue that vvhich vvas borne by nature to haue bene formed of her By which reasons he proueth that to be the true reading in the greeke the latin testaments generally concurring therewith But how now ameÌ„deth he his testameÌ„t thus whereas before it was in the margent of some greeke testameÌ„ts as appeareth by the print of Iohn Crispine the yere 1553. he leaft it cleane out both of text and margent of the greeke testaments which after this were printed in Geneua as appeareth in the two prints of the testameÌ„t set forth by Beza him self the yere 1565. in greeke and latin and the greeke testament printed after that by Henricus Stephanus the yere 1576. so that the other true reading remaineth only in the latin which against an Anabaptist or any other Protestant making no accompt of the latin farther then it agreeth with the greeke is nothing worth And therefore the english bible of the yere 1561. in this point drawing towards Anabaptisme as also the bible printed the yere 1577. leaueth it cleane out An other error of like qualitie though not of like quantitie and greatnes is in the 36. verse ca. 17. of S. Luke vvhich as the same man sayth vvanteth in Euthimius an auncient greeke vvriter in Theophilact and in al the copies printed at Basile and in the translation of Zuricke and in the bibles printed at Geneua nether Erasmus nor Sanctes Pagninus nor Bucer nor Bullinger nor Brentius nor Caluin reade it sed habetur in meis antiquis et in vulgari aeditione but it is in my old bibles and in the vulgar edition Hereof it riseth that Erasmus in sundrie places would leaue out verses because they were not in his greeke copies Beza contrariewise would put them in because he found them in his For example Of that senteÌ„ce Mar. 11. v. 26. Quòd si vos nâ—n dimis ritis nec pater vester qui in caelis est dimittet vobis peccata vestra Erasmus writeth that in the greatest number of greeke testaments this verse is not read neether in Theophilacte Nos tameÌ„ in plarisque vetustis exemplaribus reperimus atque adâ—â— in Theophilacto Romano saith Beza yet I found it in most of the auncient copies in The ephilact printed at Rome A smâ—le student with meane diligence may enlarge this by verie many examples the greeke testaments of our time for the greater multitude coÌ„ming through the handes of heretical printers specially in the beginning of this tragical heresie ministreth great store varietie of cutting of and leauing out and such like false practises But the last and principal reason why we prefer our latin translator before al other is this which I shal now speake of Flacius Illyricus finding fault with the church which was about 400. yeres after Christ in S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostoms time for ignorance in the hebrew tong treating of this matter how the testament should be faithfully translated Vnus saith he popularis meus Hieronymus linguarum egregiè peritus fuit c. Only my countryman Hierom vvas maruelous cunning in the toÌ„gs he indeuoured to illustrate the scriptures both by his translations and commentaries But he in deede being ignorant of mans sickenes Christ the phisition and vvanting the keye vvhich openeth the scripture that is the difference betvvene the lavv and the gospel being also destitute of Christ vvho openeth the dore he did litle good The like defect vvas in Lyra not loÌ„g before our time vvhereas othervvise he tooke great paines to setforth and expound the holy bible Out of which censure this I gather not how arrogantly and impiously these men despise and contemne the principal doctors and Primitiue church but that al skil knowledge of tonges serueth not to make a man interprete the testament as he ought except withal he be of sounde religion towardes God indued with his grace and spirite voide of partialitie and affection and with single sincere minde coueteth to expresse the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost If by these rules we examine and scanne our old interpreter we shal manifestly finde that he is to be preferred both before al the interpreters of our time whosoeuer is counted best yea put theÌ„ al together as also before the greeke testaments which now are currant For that his knowledge was sufficient in the greeke tonge and therefore erred not for want off kil the thing it self speaketh and it is confessed by al his and our aduersaries Pellicane Beza Castalio Molineus as shal appeare hereafter That he had good stoare of greeke copies those truer and perfecter then we haue commonly now Beza likewise in plaine termes confesseth his words are cited before he geueth this general rule of him that amongst the old greeke examples which he vsed to the furnishing of his new testament two he had which he calleth The second the eight vvhich lightly neuer disagreed from our vulgar translation Vpon the first of S. Marke he vvriteth thus In prophetis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so vve found it vvritteÌ„ in al our greeke bookes sauing the second the eight in vvhich vve reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Isai the prophete and so did the old interpreter translate the place And that it should be so is proued most clearely by the Syriake bible S. Hier. S. Austin S. Epiphan S. Chrysost specially defending this place against Porphitie Againe in S. Luke Eiectis for as omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old interpreter reade not this yet vve found it in al our old bookes excepting the secoÌ„d and eight quorum mirificus est cum vulgata editione consensus Betvveene vvhich and the vulgar edition there is a vvounderful consent But because al this serueth not in this diuine vvorke except the minde be rightly guided and voide from al passions in this parte principally our interpreter by al reason must needes be iudged soueraine and excellent because liuing so longe before the names of Papists and Protestants vvere knovveÌ„ he could not vnequally bend to one
A REFVTATION OF SVNDRY REPREHENSIONS CAVILS AND FALSE sleightes by which M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late English translation and Catholike annotations of the new Testament and the booke of Discouery of heretical corruptions By WILLIAM RAINOLDS Student of Diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes 2 Timoth. 3. v. 8 9. As Iannes and Mambres resisted Moyses so these also resist the truth men corrupted in minde reprobate concerning the fayth But they shal prosper no further For their folly shal be manifest to al as theirs also vvas Veni vide Come and see Iohn 1. v. 46. Printed at PARIS the yere 1583. THE PREFACE TO THE READER BEING appointed by those vnder whose gouernement I haue put my selfe and to whose direction I haue willingly committed whatsoeuer facultie or abilitie is in me for the benefite of our countrie and reducing to the fold of Christs Catholike church the soules of our poore countrymen so miserably seduced appointed I say by such my Superiors to examine and answere M. W. booke of Antichrist first principally so far forth as touched this Seminarie that is the Translation of the new Testament lately published with the Annotatiōs thereof and M. Martins Discouerie of their heretical corruptions next and afterward the other argument concerning Antichrist I confesse my self to haue bene so loth to take the matter in hand as ether my duetie and obedience suffered or the loue and charitie of my countrymen and brethren permitted One reason was because I sawe many in this societie for good zeale and forwardnes as willing and for ripe knowledge in diuinitie more able to vndertake and dispatch a greater matter then that An other reason was because I thought I could not without some iniurie done to Catholikes dispute against that sauage barbarous paradox making sometime the order successiō of Popes to be Antichrist as M. VV. doth in one page sometime the whole Catholike and vniuersal Church vvhereof the Pope is head to be Antichrist as he affirmeth within 5. lines after ether of which in the iudgment of any Catholike is as notorious and palpable a lie as any of Lucians True Histories So that as if a man would with sage reasons go about to disproue some of those toies which he reporteth As that his ship being taken vp with a strong wind caried in the ayre seuen dayes seuen nights thē arriued at an Iland in the middest of the ayre where he saw a terrible battayle fought and many a thousand slayne and yet the field whereon both camps pitched was nothing els but the web or weauing of spiders which is not to be marueiled at spiders being as big there as prety Ilandes are with vs here that afterward he came to a land where mē tooke their eyes out of their heads at night time or otherwise whē they meāt not to vse them put them vp in cases at other conueniēt seasons they tooke them out thence put them on againe such like stuffe of riuers of wine seas of milke and Ilands of cheese c. as if I say a mā would go about with sober reasons to refute these reports he should thereby note his auditory of smale wit discretion who needed helpe to find out such incredible fables the very like is to be deemed of this idle inuention concerning Antichrist in the iudgment of al Catholikes Lucians fables being no more false vnreasonable and vnprobable against nature and philosophie then this deuise is peeuish lying absurd vncredible and vnpossible against Christian faith and diuinitie A greater reason was for that I vtterly abhorred in the middest of my course of studies and better exercises to spend any good houres ether in reading or refuting heretical bookes which neuer edifie to vertue deuotion and saluation but distract mens mindes from the meditation of al such religious spiritual and heauenly exercise and fil their heads only with contentions disputes and brawles of wordes Pugnis verborum as the Apostle calleth them the end where of as Tertullian of old noted is commonly no other but to wearie our selues offend the readers and exasperate the aduersarie whose proud spirite of contempt and contradiction is lightly incorrigible And of this I make the more sure reckening if at this present I write ought against our English aduersaries because by certaine experience of things past I see assuredly what must be looked for in time to come For as they passe other common heretikes in pride arrogancie and good opinion of them selues and the same ioyned with intolerable ignorance euen in the first principles of our religion so for this reason they bluntly dash into any kind of absurditie be it neuer so foule and blasphemous As that the image of Christ is as very an Idol as the image of Venus or Iupiter that S. Peter vvas neuer at Rome that Christ is not begottē of the substāce of his father that he is not god of god the father but god of him selfe that he was a Priest and offered sacrifice to his father according to his diuinitie vvherevnto may be added that The succession of popes is Antichrist or if that like you not then that The vniuersal Church is Antichrist such strange articles in our religion that Christian men ought rathet to stop their eares and shut vp their eyes from hearing them or reading them then expect any ansvver or refutation of them And vvho vvould not be greued to put pen to paper whē he knoweth he shal be troubled vvith multiplicatiō of such vnreasonable assertions of such old rotten execrable heresies such propositions as euery Christian man naturally doth abhor al aūcient stories monuments vniuersally vvithout exception reiect and refel al aūcient churches and coūcels since the time of Arrius vvith one vniforme consent haue accursed cōdemned But the chiefe and maine cause why I most of al lothed this maner of writing vvas because I find in our aduersaries doctrine no kind of stay or assurance no maner of certaintie or stedfastnes their vvhole faith being like Maie flovvers for some few monethes or yeres florishing and in estimation vvhich vvithin a short space after wythereth avvay is of them selues neglected changed and forsaken And thē vvhereas to dispute seriously of any matter requireth some certaine groūdes fountaines or heads of disputation vvherevnto euery man of learning ought to stand as we see in al other sciences of Logike Philosophie Law any kind of learning humane or diuine these men haue quite remoued and abolished al such and haue brought the whole course of their diuinitie to an idle lose vaine fantastical kynd of talking consisting most in denial of principles of religion where he is counted best diuine that can maintaine talke longest he is counted to beare the bel away that most arrogantly can preferre him self before al other be they few or many old or new
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
now it is far othervvise and othervvise your selues translate it in your later bible their line is gone forth although in the bible of the yeare 1577. ye leaue the hebrew and folovv vs. Take heede saith the same Apostle lest that fal vpon you vvhich is spoken in the Prophetes See ye contemners and vvonder and perish which wordes in the hebrew are nothing so Shal we saie this is not scripture and the Apostle abused his audience and according to M. VV. diuinitie must needes tel them a lye when he telleth them this saith the Prophete this saith Esaie this Ieremie c. because he citeth the wordes not according to the original but according to the translation of the 70. which many times much varieth from that which we find now in the original The Apostle S. Iames reprouing the prowde and loftie mindes of some bringeth this text of scripture against them deus superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam translated in your English testaments thus The scripture offereth more grace and therefore saith God resisteth the proude and geueth grace to the humble vvhich vvordes are taken out of the Prouerbes of Salomon but not according to the hebrevv but after the 70. vvhich Caluin cut cleane avvay and leaft out of his translation ether for this reason vvhich you geue or because belike they agreed not vvel vvith his proude and disdainful stomake notvvithstanding they remaine in the greeke testaments printed at Geneua But by your argument he doth wel therein and saueth S. Iames from a manifest lie who affirmeth the scripture to speake so whereas by yow it is no scripture And then it were wel done of yow to mend your testaments at the next edition and leaue out this so cleare a falshode except yow retaine it of policie that at a neede yow may haue one more reason to refuse this epistle which we see graueleth yow so sore I wil not multiplie exāples because it is a thing most euident and he knoweth litle that knoweth not this to be the common maner both of some Euangelists of S. Peter and S. Paule generallie to cite the scripture in this sort VVhereof S. Paules epistle to the Hebrues in euerie chapter almost geueth proofe as likewyse doth the first of S. Peter and Beza graunteth the same of the Euangelists the auncient fathers affirme both the one the other And what neede I to presse M. W. with sentences whereas I may dispute against him out of whole chapters and bookes For let vs suppose some part of the old testament to haue bene written first in hebrew or chaldee as is a part of Daniel and to haue bene translated into greeke or latin afterwardes the chaldee or hebrue to perish the greeke or latin to remaine as for example we see in the bookes of Tobie Iudith and one booke of the Machabees The two first of which S. Hierom translated out of the chaldee the third he found though he translated it not written in hebrue And the like is thought verie probably of the songe of the three children Shal we now be so fond as to imagine that as so one as the hebrue or chaldee was lost we lost our scriptures then what saie you to S. Matthewes gospel which certainly was written by him in hebrue as witnesseth Papias Ireneus Eusebius Pātenus Origenes Sophronius S. Hierom and al antiquitie Haue we not S. Matthewes gospel because vve haue not his hebrue text nay presuppose that a gospel of S. Matthevv in hebrue may be found as you knovv such a one is extant and setting aside the authoritie of the Church vvhich to yovv is nothing no reason can be brought but yovv ought as vvel to admit that for the original as the greeke of S. Luke and S. Iohn yet dare yovv prefer that before the greeke and count that the more autētical reforme the greeke according to that hebrue this one example if M. VV. had the grace to consider and the ground hereof it vvere sufficient to ansvvere vvhatsoeuer he saith in his idle discourse in praise of the greeke hebrue for defacing the latin But let vs examine his reason vvherein lieth the pith of this questiō Thus he declaimeth for the puritie of the greeke and hebrue VVhereas vve couet to attaine the meaning of the holy Ghost hovv shal vve do this more assuredly then if vve heare the holy Ghost speaking in his ovvne vvordes This is so cleare that the Papistes them selues confesse it to be necessarie if so be the first original copies vvere pure vncorrupt For now they crie that the old testament in the hebrue fountaine and the nevv testament in the greeke is most corrupt vvhy so vvhat causeth our Papistes so to refuse the hebrue and greeke fountaine and to hunt after the litle riuer of the latin edition vvho doubteth but it is done for that only reason because they find the fountaines to be not so commodious for them For if they had the fountaines fauorable inough they vvould rather take thence then from the diches and dregges of a corrupt translation Novv because they knovv that certaine destruction hangeth ouer their heads if they be called to the fountaines therefore are they constrained not only to auoyde the spring of the purest and most holesome vvaters but also they labour to proue that the litle riuers are purer then the fountaines Here Reader thou hast many wordes and litle matter much a doe and smale reason much craking and boasting of the pure fountaines by one who from his infancie neuer dranke but of the stinking puddles of Geneua lake In which discourse of his three thinges may be learned First that he confesseth of vs that we refuse not the fountaines but because we thinke them to be corrupt Wherein he saith truly and whereby thou maist note that in folowing the latin as we doe we are lead not as they are by fansie and panges but by conscience and iudgment The second is that he affirmeth it as a thing without al doubt that thus we say because the foūtaines be not so cōmodious for vs. once againe because the fountaines are not fauorable inough vnto vs. and yet once againe because vve knovv there is no vvay vvith vs but death and destruction if vve he called to the fountaines whereof because I haue spokē alreadie I wil say no more only this may serue for an example what a lustie courage they can shew in bragging and what a pretie feate they haue in so few lynes to varie a lye so many wayes And if M. W. had geuen but one example wherein he by his hebrue greeke text could so plage vs and bring vs certam perniciem assured destruction he had done somewhat like a professor of this new diuinitie and it were a readie way to end al these controuersies Because he doth not and I dare warrant him
States Princes and nations who withstoode the bishop Sea of Rome as they do now Nullis temporibus defueruÌ„t sayth he nec Episcopi nec Presbyteri nec Imperatores nec populi c. There neuer vvanted at any time nether Bishops nether Priestes nor Emperours nor nations nor Priuate men vvhich had not rather be condemned of your church for heretikes then to mainteine the Catholike communion of your Apostasie wherefore hauing so large a scope let him repayre to that his owne church and succession of Protestantes and of them seeke for the true written bible of whom he receaueth the sense and meaning of the same not to our church and succession of Catholikes whom he chiefly condemneth for erring in the true sense and then reproueth as bitterly for corrupting the true text The conclusion of al is this if as a Christian as an obedient child of the Church and willing to learne if thus he demauÌ„d of the Church for true bibles she can serue him with more varietie of such in mo languages then it wil stande with his ease to reade If he demaund this as an heretike as a rebellious Apostata as to picke quarels and maintaine strife the Church hath nought to do with him She answereth as our sauiour answered the Pharisees Quid me tentatis hypocritae as he taught his Apostles Nolite dare sanctum canibus She sendeth him to his owne scattered and diuided coÌ„gregation in to whose communion he hath thrust him selfe vnder whose false banner he fighteth against her vvhom the vniuersal Christian vvorld in al times and ages vntil our daies hath acknovvleged for the only true catholike apostolike church of Christ And hitherto of the hebrevv fountaines and originals vvherein I haue staâ—ed somevvhat the longer first of al that the reader may see that not vvithout iust cause I charge M.W. vvith a manifest lie in saing vve flee the hebrevv for that vve knovv it to containe the assured bane and destruction of our cause He may here perceaue in part vvhat reason vvhat argument vvhat conscience moueth the Church thus to prescribe and vs to folovv the Churches ordinance herein That vve nether feare nor contemne nor refuse it but for the vnderstaÌ„ding of the true sense studie and honour it as much as he though vve hange not our faith vpon it so as if the Ievves depraue a text touching Christs diuinitie vve therefore vvil denie him to be God and if they raze out the only text that foreshevveth the maner of his passion and crucifying vve vvil not for al that geue ouer our faith that in such sort he vvas crucifyed for vs. Secondarely thus I haue done to satisfie M· VV. dâ—maund who chalengeth vs so confidently to shevve any error in the originals vvho affirmeth so peremptorily those places to be safe and vntouched which appertaine to the proofe of our Christian religion Which how true it is he now seeth if he wil beleeue ether reason or his owne maisters Besides that his argument is ouer slender when he wil conclude those originalles to be pure because there is no corruption in matters of coÌ„trouersie as though there could be no errors but those which proceede of wilfulnes and malice against Christian religion as though the Iewes could not erre by negligence ignorance and other humane infirmitie by which Caluine Beza the rest of that knot can imagine very many and the same very grosse errors to haue crepte in to our latin bibles But true is the old prouerbe Graculus graculo Like wil to like as I haue said Of the Iewes for neare alliance and brotherhode they iudge so diuinely as though they were halfe goddes who neuer erred ether of malice ether of wilfulnes or ignorance or slowthfulnes or want of due consideration or thorough any kind of like ether sinne or imbecillitie But of the Christian Catholike Church of the Bishops and Pastors by whom they haue that peece of Christianitie which yet they retaine they deeme most wickedly them they accompt more dissolute more irreligious more careles negligent in matters diuine then the worst people that liue vnder the cope of heauen These in the same kind haue erred both of malice and of wilfulnes and of contempt and of negligence by al maner of faulting voluntarie inuoluntarie wherevnto a man may possibly fal Thirdly some reason mouing me thus to doe was because nether M. Martin in his Discouerie much lesse the preface of the new testament handling only such thinges as were incideÌ„t to that booke that is geuing reason why in that translatioÌ„ the latin vulgar edition vvas folowed before the common greeke testamentes had any occasioÌ„ to treate of this matter For albeit M. Martin proueth errors in matters historical to be in our coÌ„mon hebrew bibles yet he maketh no stay therein but rather presupposing the hebrew text to be altogether true as the aduersaries pretend he so much the more discouereth their wilfulnes and peruersitie who in their translations depart sundrie times froÌ„ those hebrew originalls which they seeme to magnifie as altogether faultles and vnspotted One principal corruption of great moment and importance he obiecteth out of the 21. psalme where the prophet saith in the person of Christ They haue pearced my handes and feete which by the Iewes being maliciously altered by mutation of one or other letter in to As a lyon my hands and feete without wit reason or common sense whereby is euacuated the best and clearest prophecie in the whole body of scripture touching the maner and fashion of Christs crucifying who besides M. W. would so blindly haue dissembled it yet stil sing vs the old song of the pure fountaines It is written that not long sithence certaine euangelical Anabaptistes lately conuerted from Iudaisme reading that place of S. Peter in Castalios translation Iesum Nazarenum scelestis manibus comprehendistis et ad palum alligatum sustulistis Iesus of Nazareth you haue apprehended and binding him to a post or stake so made him avvay vpon this text fel to a great and daungerous contention among them selues in their congregations whether Christ were pearced hand and foote with nailes as the Church beleeueth or were only bound hand and foote to a gibbet as the fashion among the Turkes is now a daies as the other two theeues were done to death which were crucifyed with him And remoue the traditioÌ„ of the Church which these good felowes care not for and this place of Dauid and certainly out of the old testament it can not perhaps nether out of the new be clearely proued to a contentious heretike that he was crucified in such sort as the truth is and we beleeue For as the heretikes now a daies at home in our couÌ„trie gladly abhorre the name of the crosse al signes or memories there of both in priuate talking publike preaching and writing rather vse the name of
disâ—greing from the mind of the holy Ghost Wil you vvishe vs rather to take Castalio vvhom D. Humfrey matcheth vvith the best and praiseth his bible as most painfull most diligent most thorougly conferred examined sifted and polished and Conradus Gesnerus simply preferreth it before al as the best that vvas euer yet set out by the Protestants Vertit biblia saith he ita diligenter ac suÌ„ma fide ad hebraica graeca exemplaria c. vt omnes omnium versiones hactenus aeditas longo post se interuallo reliquisse videatur Cast alio bath translated the bible so diligently and vvith so singular fidelitie according to the hebrevv and greeke that he seemeth far to haue surpassed al traÌ„slations of al meÌ„ vvhat so euer haue hetherto bene set forth Yet this notvvithstanding vve can not possibly so esteeme of it considering that Beza in so many places of his notes condeÌ„neth it not only for false corrupt peruerse but also for pestileÌ„t sacrilegious Ethnical Turkish such a one as coÌ„taineth the very seede laieth open the high vvay to manifest Apostasie froÌ„ Christ To come neerer home Caluin I suppose by M. W. iudgment should succede in place of our olde but so should vve make as euil a chaunge as if vve tooke any yet mencioned For Caluin vvhatsoeuer grace or good qualitie othervvise he had vvas as savvcie and malapert in altering the text of scripture as any of his felovv sectaries so vvriteth of him his ovvne brother Carolus Molineus Caluinus in sua harmonia textum euangelicum desuitare facit sursum versum vt res ipsa indicat vim infert literae euangelicae et illam in mul tis locis transponit et insuper addit literae Caluin in his harmony which is the very letter of his translation maketh the text of the gospel to leape vp and dovvne as the thing it self shevveth He vseth violence to the letter of the gospel and in many places cleane transposeth it and besides this he addeth to the text that is he geueth vs a text of his ovvne making What remaineth for vs to do now but to sticke to our old seing the Protestants them selues thus disswade vs from taking any new But there remaineth yet one sure felow whom I suppose M. W. could be content to substitute in place not only of our auncient edition but of Luther Occolampadus Castalio yea and Caluin him self that is Theodore Beza whom the english congregation seeme most to folow But he must tel vs what testament of what yere of what date because certaine it is that the first editions dâ—ffer notoriously from the middle and the middle from the later as hath bene touched before of al testameÌ„ts set forth by any herâ—tâ—ke no one hath bene more refuted coÌ„uinced of fowle and wilfull corrâ—ptions and that by the verâ—e heretikes them selues then those of Bezaes witnesses whereof are besides Catholike vvriters noted before Selneccerus the Germane and the Vniuâ—rsitie of Iena Seâ—astianus Castaâ—io in a vvhole booke and Carolus Molineus in vâ—rie many places of his notâ—s vpon the nevv testament vvhich he set forth VVhere often times he reprehendeth Caluin and Beza often times of Beza he saieth that he de facto mutat textum Altereth the text not only in sense but in the verie word and letter Againe Theod. Beza Mat. 10. v. 10. Luc. 9 3. defacto muâ—at textum vt hos ita conciliet Sed non pâ—acet mutari textum qui ab omnibus et antiquis et receÌ„tioribus doctâ—ribus retinetur quum sacile coÌ„ciliari possint Beza in S. Matthevv chap. 10. v. 10. and S. Luke chap. 9. v. 3. actually changeth the text so to make a reconciliation betvvene the euangelists But I like not that so to change the text vvhich is retained of al doctors both old and nevv and othervvise they may vvel be recoÌ„ciled and whether they may or may not surely that is a very mad way of reconciliation And commonly that writer preferreth our vulgar editioÌ„ before Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius the Tigurine traÌ„slation Pagnines etiam Iohannis Caluini et omnibus aliis yea befâ—re Iohn Caluins to and all other And in the same place Here Erasmus did vvel to folovv the old edition and it had bene better for Beza to haue done so to And againe Peccat Beza antiquam versionem mutans IohaÌ„nis 3. v. 19 et 43. And the like is very common in Castalio Beza malè reprehendit veterem interpretem Melius transtulerat vetus interpres Iniustè reprehendit veterem interpretem c. vniustly and vvith out cause Beza reprehendeth the old interpreter The old interpreter had translated it better before And touching Beza he saith that to note al his errors committed in translating the new testament Opus esset nimis magno lâ—bro It vvould require a very great booke And hauing noted certaine faultes of Beza committed only in the first ten chapters of S. Matthew thus he concludeth In his decem Matthaei capitibus in quibus tameÌ„ plurimae quae merito repreheÌ„dere potuissem praetermisi quam prolixum passem c. I trust I haue shevved sufficiently by these ten chapters of S. Matthevv in vvhich notvvithstanding I haue omitted very many things vvhich iustly I might haue reprehended vvhat a long register of his errors I could gather out of his vvhole vvorke For this is true that oft times he erreth not only in vvords vvhich is not so daungerous and might be tolerated but also in things and the same most vvaightie and oft times he enforceth by vvrithing not the sentences only but also the vvords of the holy vvriters to serue his error So Iohn 1. v. 12. he corrupteth a most not able place and of greatest moment touching freevvil c. And in fevv to speake al for I should vvrite out vvhole treatises bookes if I vvould shew the vile abusing of scripture committed by that vvretch of damnable memorie vvhom our english Protestantes cheefely extolle as by M. VV. vve learne thus much Castalio noteth and shevveth by manifolde examples that Beza then principally laboureth in peruerting the scripture vvheÌ„ it appertaineth most to the benefite vertue of Christs passion and our redemption Thus he vvriteth vpon the 6. chapter to the Romanes and these vvordes of our latin text Vt destruatur corpus peccati in the english translation That the body of sinne may be destroyed both agreing exactly with the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza saith Castalio turneth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eneruetur may bevveakened and reprehendeth the old interpreter Erasmus and me for translating may be destroyed for this honest man vvil not haue sinne to be distroyed by Christ but only weakened vvherein he doth plainely diminish the benefite bestovved vpon vs by Christ Id quod multis aliis in locis eum facere animaduerti
much and the reader much more Because I must be driuen to talke of titles and pointes and rules of the Rabbines and readings of the Massoreth and such other obscure matter troublesome for me to laie together and vvrite out and not intelligible for a common reader I vvil therefore put dovvne only certaine propositions exemplifying theÌ„ in one or tvvo vvordes vvhereby the learned shal vnderstand how true that is which I affirme and the vnlearned shal be able to conceaue somwhat I say therefore that of the hebrew far lesse hold can be taken in binding a contentious heretike then of any other language The reason is first because their tonge hauing in it no great store of words euery word almost is vsed in verie diuers significations farre more then is found in latin or greeke or many vulgar languages and therefore if you presse him with one translation or sense he forthwith hath sundry and diuers senses to flee vnto Hence coÌ„meth that diuersitie in the Psal 54. Extendit deus manum suam in retribuendo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the 70. God hath stretched forth his hand to revvard or recompence as the church readeth which place the catholikes both of late and auncient times vse to proue the reward and recompence of good workes The english bibles turne it thus He hath laide his hands vpon such as be at peace vvith him the more common Protestant translation as it appeareth by Marlorate Misit manus suas in paces suas He hath laid his haÌ„ds vpon his peaces This diuersitie riseth of the same hebrew word but hauing diuers senses An other reason is because their substantiues being in maner al deriued of verbes often times one substantiue may haue diuers deriuations from diuers verbes which bringeth as great varietie as is possible So the church readeth ps 59. Dedisti metuentibus te significationeÌ„ vt fugiant a facie arcus Thou hast geuen to those that feare thee a signe that they flee from the face of the bovve according to the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so vvas the hebrew in S. Hieroms time as vve see by his translation The Protestants Luther Bucer Caluin as vve see by Marlorate vvil haue it Dedisti metuentibus te vexillum ad vexillaÌ„dum propter veritatem Thou hast geuen to them that feare thee a flagge to flagge for truth the english of one yere thou hast geuen a token for such as feare thee that they may triuÌ„phe because of thy truth of an other Thou hast geueÌ„ a baÌ„ner to them that feare thee that it may be displaied because of thy truth This differeÌ„ce in one part coÌ„meth of the 2. radical hebrew verbes the old church the 70. S. HieroÌ„ folowing one the new congregation of the ProtestaÌ„ts rather liking the other The difference in the other part bovv and truth no doubt came thence that the old hebrew bookes had that vvorde vvritten vvith one kinde of T the later vvith an other Againe touching the literal seÌ„se of the hebrew words what masters shal we follow The old Rabbines Dauid Kimhi Aben Ezra and such other Thus to say Beza Munster Caluin Castalio the Protestants commonly induce vs. But Master D. Humfrey holdeth the contrary and not without reason if we had a good pilote to rule the sterne and containe vs in mediocritie VVe ought not to credit saith he in my iudgment the Rabbines touching the very exposition deriuation of the hebrevv vvords Christ pronouÌ„ceth of them that they are blinde guides of the blinde Therefore this is not the vvay to interprete rightly nether may vve folovv them except vve vvil preferre darknes before light errors before truth doubtful things before assured daungerous before safe and vvicked and blasphemous before Godly and Catholike By which rule al your new hebrew translations are called in to question yea are pronounced to be darkesome erroneous doubtful daungerous wicked blasphemous For your best and greatest translators whom did they folow in the sense of the hebrew wordes but their common dictionaries And out of whoÌ„ are they drawen looke vpon the title of Munsters Dictionarium Hebraeum vltimò ab autore Sebastiano Munstero recognitum et ex Rabbinis praesertim ex radicibus Dauid Kimhi auctuÌ„ et locuplet a tum This hebrevv dictionarie is novv last renevved by SebastiaÌ„ Munster and encreased and enriched out of the Rabbines especially out of Dauid Kimhi And Munster in his translations which is accompted most exact to the hebrew protesteth that he regarded therein no Christian fathers but only the Iudaical Rabbines Nobis saith he in animo fuit talem parare aeditionem scripturae quae per omnia hebraismo esset coÌ„formis ideo solos hebraeos coÌ„suluimus scriptores And here perhaps I might propose vnto you an Insoluble an argument that you wil neuer aunswere sauing the honour of your maisters doctors Your maister Beza correcteth the new testameÌ„t generally and draweth the greeke citations in the same and al doubtful wordes to the sense of the hebrew and the Rabbines Doctor Humfrey on the coÌ„trary side wil haue the hebrew words of the old testament drawen to signifie as the Apostles cite them according to the 70. in the new testament and condemneth your translators for doing otherwise and namely whereas in the 2. of the Actes your English bibles after Beza translate Shâ—ol Graue he acknowledging that in hebrevv and according to the Rabbines It may so signifie many things besides as pitt the state of the dead and damned death a ditch the east or birth and hell this last saith he must vve folovv by authoritie of the holy Ghost Act 2. interpreting a place of the psalme 15. Where you see one wil haue the hebrew word in the psalme translated Hel because so it is in the greeke Act. 2. the other will haue the greeke Act. 2. traÌ„slated Graue because so may be the signification of the hebrevv ps 15. et sic in caeteris vvhere by the way you may note that your pure and vndefiled bibles are not altogether so iudged by this vvriter a man of such credit and name in your coÌ„gregation yea that he iudgeth them corrupt in so great a matter as a principal article of our faith commeth vnto And yet al this vvhich hetherto I haue spoken is nothing touching the true controuersie vvhich is about the hebrevv originals that is whether vve must take them as novv vve haue them geuen vs vvith the ordinarie pointes and vovvels put to by the Ievves and Rabbines or vvhether vve must take the consonantes only and put to the points or vowels by our owne discretion If the first then al those horrible absurdities must stande which before I haue noted against Christs Diuinitie Humanitie Passion Incarnation If the second then must the Protestants fal to translate a freshe for al their bibles hitherto are litle worth
of Protestāts pa. 411. M. W. inuectiue against the Annotations of the nevv Testament page 476. The summe thereof pa. 477. Annotations of the new Testament vvhat they cōteine pa. 484.485 what fault M.W. findeth in them 484.491 Blasphemie in the Annotations touching Christes Priesthod pa. 528.529 Ansvvered 530. vsque ad 542. blasphemie touching merite of vvorkes pa. 543. ansvvered 544 c. Hovv the Protestants fel to cal the Pope of Rome Antichrist in praef pa. 42. M. W. knovveth not vvel vvhat that Antichrist is against vvhom he vvriteth Ibid. pa. 4. The absurditie of that assertion Ibid. pa. 4. The impossibilitie of that opinion 52.53.54 The end of that doctrine 72.73 Arguments ridiculous made by M. W. and attributed to vs. pa. 497.498.499.502.504.510.511.513 such arguments tend to make a mockerie of al faith 516.517.521.522.523 S. Leo the great called Antichrist by Beza pa. 155. The first Apostles of our nation were Papistes and Massing priestes by the cōfession of our aduersaries p. 165.166 Auncient archheretikes the protestants forefathers in sundrie partes of their faith pa. 31.32 S. Athanasius called Sathanasius by the heretikes pa. 84. S. Austin called a blind bussard pa. 166 S. Austin most filthily abused and mangled by the Sacramentaries pa. 166.177 S. Austin a priest 65. S. Austin S. Hierom old papistes 121. B BEza a fierbrand of sedition pa. 231. VVriters against him pa. 232. He correcteth S. Luke and our Sauiour 233.234.236.241 and is defended by M. VV. in so doing 236.237 His reasons 238.239 Refuted ibid. et 240.241 Refuted long ago by Luther 257.258 how he correcteth the new Testament 260.261 Bezaes fault in excusable for ought M. VV. ether hath said or can say 250. He doubteth of a part of S. Iohns gospel 363.364 He furthereth the Anabaptistes against Christes incarnation of the B. virgin 368.369 See Translation of scripture Bible-beaters pa. 400. The Bible neuer so mangled by any as by the protestants 400.401 Their bible is no bible 404.405 See Scriptures Ceremonies in Baptisme pa. 504.505 C Catholike doctrine vnpossible to be ouercome by any heresie least of al by this of our time pa. 41. The name Catholike not applicable to the English religion praef 87.88 Caluin condemneth the auncient fathers for approuing Melchisedecs sacrifice pa. 60.61 Caluin for the real presence pa. 223. Carolostadius exposition of Christes wordes Hoc est corpus meum pa. 254. allovved by Zuinglius 255. Castalios translation of the Testament much commended by the protestants pa. 380. His discours that Christ is not the Messias praef pa. 67.68 The Church catholike after Christes time is euer populous and spread in many nations pa. 350. et praef pa. 62.63 She is the ground of al faith 442. built vpō a rocke vnmoueable 479. No good worke or martyrdom profiteth to saluation out of the Catholike Church 116.117 Infinite difference betvvene the Catholike cause and the Protestante pa. 556.557.558 No stay in faith out of the Catholike Church praef pa. 24. To say that the vvhole Church hath fayled is to deny Christes incarnation pref p. 56.57 58.59 to make him a lyer ib. 66.67 to deny him to be the true Messias ib. 68.69.70.71 The inuisible Church a poetical fansie pref pa. 60. refelled by Melanchton 60.61 by Caluin Oecolampadius and others 62.63.64 the Protestants sensibly cōtradict them selues in deuising it 64.65 The foundation of the English Protestant church pa 480.481.482 The antiquitie thereof 524. It is ful of Atheistes 410. S. Chrysostom for the real presence p. 188.208.215.217.218 his place comparing Christ vvith Elias pa. 207. It proueth inuincibly the real presence a pa. 204. vsque ad 214. S. Chrysost for the sacrifice pa. 214.215 He is almost as ful of lies as words by the protestants doctrine pa. 227. S. Ciril for the real presence p. 198.199.200 D S. Damascene for the real presence pa. 201.202 Dauid George vpon vvhat ground he denied Christ pref pa. 66. Defendere is vvel translated to reuenge pa. 464.465.466.467 The Doctors of the primitiue Church condemned by euery priuate sectarie in that vvherein they gain say his heresie pa. 82.83 by the Zuinglians for approuing the sacrifice of Melchisedech pa. 60. and Masse pa. 69.70.71.72 and for disallowing the mariage of priestes and votaries 83. by the Puritanes for allovving holydaies in the honour of Christ his Saintes 84. by the Trinitarians for acknovvledging the B. Trinitie 84. by the Lutherans for denying the Vbiquetie of Christs body 85. by M. W. for their doctrine of penance and vvorkes 82 11◠and for sayng that Antichrist is one man pref pa. 44.45 See vvorkes E Elias cloke the Zuinglians supper compared together pa. 212.213 Elias shal come before the day of iudgment pa. 494.495 English vvriters 478. their maner of vvriting 284.285.475 and disputing 477. more absurd then others pref pa. 6.7 Those of the English religion are not Protestants pref pa. 88. they are properly called Zuinglians or Sacramentaries ibi 89.90.91 by vvhat names they cal them selues praef pa. 91. hovv they are called by Acte of parlament ibi 21. F The true meaning of Only faith iustifying pa. 280.411.412 Libertinisme the end thereof 127.128 The nature of true Christian faith pa. 517.518.519 hovv one part of faith is applied to the confirmation of an other 521. Ecclesiastical maner of fasting commeth from Christ and his Apostles pa. 89.90 The Zuinglians figure in Christs wordes touching the sacrament pa 251. The figure of the Catholikes ib. infinite difference betvvene these tvvo 252.253.254.255 Freevvil pa. 509. G Grace hindereth nothing the merite of workes pag. 102.103 To say God is the author of synne is to say God is an Idol or a deuil pa 451. The protestants say so 451.453 454. S. Gregorie much praysed by the Protestantes pag. 158. much rayled at by the Protestantes 164. A booke written against him by Vergerius 165. S. Gregorie a priest without al reason made minister by M. Iewel 164. The Greeke Testament more aduantageable for the Catholikes then the common latin pa 283.284 Our common latin Testament more pure then the greeke now extant 361.362.363 The greeke Testament now differeth much from the old 363.364 Additions rashly made to the greeke 365.366.367 Parcels of importance left out of the greeke 367.368.369.370 H HEauen is of grace vvorkes pa. 104.105.106.107 544.545 Of mercy and iustice 105.106 107.108.109 Heauen must receaue Christ Act. 3. v 21 maketh nothing against Christs presence in the sacrament pa. 179.180.181.193 handled at large a pag. 170. vsque ad 175. S. Paule to the Hebrevves as much doubted of in the primitiue church as the epistle of S. Iames. pa. 38.39 The Apostles cited not scripture alwaies according to the hebrue pa. 287.288.289 Bookes of scripture written in hebrue lost 290. S. Hierom preferring the hebrue before the latin in his time iustifieth not the hebrue of our time pa. 297.337 More probable that the hebrue hath bene corrupted then the latin pa. 297.298.299.300 Corruptions in the hebrue pa. 302. in Isai against
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
see and yovv shall not see and wel may they treade it vnder theire feete as our Sauiour parabolically forespake that heretikes wold doe when he said Nolite proiicere margaritas ante porcos ne forte conculceÌ„t eas pedibus suis but to refel confute suppresse it that is no more possible then that Christ should be false of his worde and promisse that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And whereas it hath coÌ„tinued by the protestaÌ„ts coÌ„mon grauÌ„t aboue a thousand yeares in truth euer since Christ his passion against other maner of tempests then these are heretikes of excelleÌ„t learning heresies of maruelous subtilitie most mightie Emperours rulers of the worlde now to imagine that it maie be vanquished of these grosse and contrarie heresies fortified with no maner of learning wherof manie are so base that men eueÌ„ by the light of nature abhorre theÌ„ hauing nothing to mainteine theÌ„ selues but onlie a vaine challeÌ„ginge of the Spirite and bold crakinge of the vvord of the Lord which a parrat caÌ„ doe with a litle instruction as well as they thus I saie to talke were more fit for Pasquillus Estaticus or a sicke man wheÌ„ he raueth than a sober Diuine that wayeth what he speaketh CHAP. III. Hovv M. VV. defendeth Luther preferring his priuate iudgment before all auncient fathers and Doctors NEXT commeth in againe frier Luther whoÌ„ M. Martin accused for saynge that he esteemed not a thousande Augustines CipriaÌ„s Churches wheÌ„ they are against him That the reader may better carie awaie the matter I wil first put downe Luthers wordes where vpon this controuersie standeth after it shal be easier to iudge how aptlie M. VV. defence is framed The wordes of Luther are in his booke written against King Henrie the eight her Maiesties father and are these But I saith he against the saynges of fathers of men of Angels of deuels set not old custome not multitude of men but the vvord of the onlie eternall maiestie the Gospel here I stand here I sit here I glorie here I triumphe here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Henricists Sophists and all the gates of hell much more ouer the saynges of men be they neuer so holie Gods vvorde is aboue al the diuine maiesty maketh for me so as I passe not if a thousaÌ„d Austines a thousand Ciprians a thousand Kinge-Harrie Churches stoode against me God can not erre or deceaue Austine Ciprian and likevvise all other elect might erre they haue erred here ansvvere maister Harrie here plaie the maÌ„ I coÌ„tene thy lies I feare not thy threates here thovv staÌ„dest astonished like a stock c. These are the wordes with which M. Martin findeth faulte M.VV. defendeth them thus If Luther had preferred him self before all fathers Churches he vvere not to be borne vvithal but this Luther neuer challenged to himself But in some causes Luther might esteeme more his ovvne iudgement then the authoritie of Austine or Ciprian or a thousand Churches For if that vvhich Luther taught vvere agreable to Gods vvord Luthers iudgment vvas to be preferred before all the contrary iudgments of all men liuinge Before I enter into the examination of this answere let me demaunde this one thinge in courtesie of you M.W. what the reason is whie you so busilie and eagerlie defende Luther be his wordes neuer so strange or fanatical or whie is the Pope Antichrist for resisting your Gospel whereas Luther you aduaunce if not into the place of Christ yet at least amonge the number of his Apostles Did the Pope of Rome euer persequute your zuinglian gospel with more deadly hatred then did that pope of Saxonie Did he not from the verie beginning to his later breath holde you and your brethren for most damnable wretches and professed enemies of the eternall testament of Christ Are you ignorant how for this cause he wrote whole volumes agaynst your first Apostle Zuinglius Read you neuer the Confession of your brethreÌ„ of the Tigurine church where thus they complaine Lutherus statim ab initio mâ—rdere furere conuitiari bacchari coepit c. Luther presently at the beginning began to byte to play the mad man to raile and rage and besides this he filled his bookes vvith the horrible names of Deuils Sectaries Sprites mad men and vvhatsoeuer slaunders came to his minde he cast them out agaynst vs outragiously Complaine they not in the preface of that Confession that he inueigheth against them as against obstinate heretikes and such as are guiltye to themselues of all impietie as prophaners of the Sacraments and the most vyle and pestilent men that goe on the ground He proscribeth and condemneth first of al the faithful doctors and ministers of God Oecolampadius Zuinglius and their disciples vvheresoeuer they be all frindship and communion vvith vs he compteth vvicked abominable and vvhat soeuer commeth froÌ„ vs be it letters be it bookes be it salutations be it benedictions he vvill not only not reade but he vvill not so much as vouchsafe to looke vppon them or heare them spoken of so farre forth that when Eroschouerus the zuinglian printer of zuricke sent him a bible traÌ„slated by the diuines there Luther sent it him backe againe with this greetinge that he should not send him anie thinge that proceeded from the ministers of the Tigurine church for he vvould haue no dealinge vvith them nether vvoulde he receaue or reade their bookes for the churches of God could not communicate vvith theÌ„ Yea he protesteth that he had rather susteine a hundred seueral deathes then to become of your opinion or shew any couÌ„tenance of bearing fauour to it The Lord defend sayth he that I vvittingly and vvillingly by the authority of my name should couer or confirme the verie least error of the fanatical SacrameÌ„taries Nam vel centies laniari aut igne comburi malleÌ„ c. For I had rather be torne in peeces or burnt vvith fier a huÌ„dred times theÌ„ to folovv the opinion and agree in doctrine vvith zvvinglius Oecolampadius the rest of those miserable vnfortunate fanatical men Finally know you not M. W. that thus he began thus he went foreward thus he continued thus he ended his daies dyinge such a mortal enemye to you that he seemed to make his hâ—tred and detestation of your church and gospel a peece of his iustificatioÌ„ before Christe as in his last Confession made a litle before his death and recorded in the foresaid Confession of Zurake it appeareth Ego qui iam sepulchro vicitus obambulo hoc testimoniam et hanc gloriam ad Christi saluatoris tribunal perferam c. I saith he that novv vvalke nye to my graue vvill carie this testimonie and this glorie to the tribunal seate of Christ my Sauiour that I haue vvith all earnestnes condemned and auoyded those fanaticall men and enemies of the Sacrament Zuinglius OEcolampadius
the Prophete Esaie so in the first part coupling both toghether he sheweth what is perfect penance as likewise doth our Sauiour in S. Matthew where he condemneth that Pharisaical error but that wickednes being remoued the thinges in them selues he approueth calleth them the iustice of Christians who for the same haue their revvard vvith God and that M. W. replie not this to haue bene a Iewish ceremonie and therefore abrogated he may learne if he know not or he may remeÌ„ber if he haue forgotten that this is a duetie morall and therefore practised not onlie in the law but also out of the law and before the law and after the law both in the tyme of nature and grace Touching the lawe of nature before the law of Moyses I referre him to S. Hierome in his booke against Iouinian partlie because those examples are by him wel set forth and vrged against Iouinian partlie because M.W. may withall finde that his opinion is not new but was of old defended by that fleshlie heretike This morall duetie grounded on the law of nature God confirmed and established by his writteÌ„ law as we reade in the booke of Numbers Thus vnder the law the prophet Dauid did penaÌ„ce Thus out of the law the Niniuites did penance and God approued their doinge Thus that wicked Kinge Achab did penance the scripture alloweth him therin Thus in the time of grace S. Paule chastised him selfe and enioyned penance to others The Apostles vsuallie enioyned fastes before they ordered priestes as appeareth in the Actes This kinde of fast and penance vsed Timothe wheÌ„ though otherwise weake feeble he altogether abstayned from wine so far forth that the Apostle S. Paule thought it needeful to appoint require him to vse a litle vvine because of his vveake stomake and manie infirmites Touchinge which place were it not that M.W. hath already condemned the fathers as erringe in this point I could wish him quietlie and consideratlie to reade S. Chrisostomes notable homelie tom 5. Homelia 1. ad popul Antioche Finallie in one worde that true Christians should thus doe that is vse prescript kinde of fastinge and discipline in the new testament our Sauiour euidentlie foretelleth when he saith in excuse of his Apostles because they fasted not as did S. Ihons disciples Can the children of the bridegrome mourne as long as the bridegrome is vvith them but the dayes vvil come vvhen the bridegrome shal be taken avvay from them and then they shal fast which fast must necessarilie be vnderstoode of a fast dâ—ffering from that which they obserued with Christ And so nether can be vnderstood of the fast from sinne for so Christ would not allow them to breake their fast nether of fast as fast signifieth temperance in diet for Christ neuer allowed them excesse or intemperance and brieflie caÌ„ signifie no other fast but such as the Church after Christes departure vnto these dayes hath and yet doth obserue Agaynst al this M. W. alleageth two Greeke wordes of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is accordinge to his sense seueritie of discipline in punishing the bodie the English Testament tourneth it sparing the bodie whereunto the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the same place is traÌ„slated satisfying of the flesh And what meaneth M.W. by this allegatioÌ„ thinketh he that the Apostle discommendeth the first and exhorteth men to the second is he so verie an Epicure that he can but once imagine of S. Paule that he should wish men to pamper vp their bodie and employ them selues to satisfie the flesh if he meane so let him speake plainlie that men may see to what filthines this new Gospel tendeth If otherwise why alleageth he those wordes in this place and against fasting and penance why at all alleageth he the bare wordes without a coÌ„mentarie Touchinge the sense let the reader peruse the Annotation vpon the same in the Catholike English TestameÌ„t he shal quickly see what pithe there is in M. W. greeke citations with which I know not to what purpose he would seme to illuminate his writinge Verie wel and succinctlie Theodorete geueth the sense of that place otherwise obscure and hard Oportet sua sponte abstinere non tanquam ab abominandis sed tanquam a suauissimis The Apostle meante not to withdraw men from abstinence they must abstaine from meates and drinkes not as from things impure and abominable for that is Iudaical but as from things pleasant and delectable to the flesh and this is Christian His reason why he disliketh the former workes of penance is because they are iniurious to Christs passion ond death the onlie price and satisfaction for sinnes This argument is al one with the last of priesthode and therefore in parte is satisfied alreadie For a surplusage I adde that these and the lyke reasons procede rather of ignorance then ought els therefore if he would first learne what is the meaning of the Catholike Church and all Christians he would neuer so idlie trouble the world with such stuffe nor so wickedlie controule the learned auncient Bishops and withal he might ease him selfe of some labour Verie diuinelie saith the holie Councel This satisfaction vvhich vve vndertake for our sinnes is not ours so that it is not by Christ Iesus for vve that of our selues as of our selues can do nothing by his cooperatioÌ„ vvhich strengtheneth vs can do al things so man hath not vvhereof to glory but al his gloriation is in Christ in vvhom vve liue deserue and satisfie doing fruites vvorthie of penance vvhich of Christ haue force by him are offered to the father and by him are accepted of the father Thus the Councel whose doctrine wel vnderstoode maketh far more for the honour of the Crosse and bloud of Christ then doth our aduersaries without comparison And surelie ether our lucke is euill in these our dayes whose happe is to fal amongst such peruerse aduersaries that what-soeuer we can do one way or other wil gnawe at it or els our aduersaries lotte is strange and maruelous amongst whom scant any one can frame an argument against vs but presentlie he hath a brother of his owne that is readie to pul him by the sleeue and cal him foole for his labour M.W. reproueth the fathers and in them al catholikes for that by our workes we pull from Christ and diminish the vertue of his bloud Contrary-wise that most graue and learned father Iohn Brentius so M. Iewel calleth him inueigheth against vs for that by our workes we geue to much to Christ and magnifie more theÌ„ we ought the vertue of his Crosse and in truth if there were any fault in the doctrine of the Church BreÌ„tius reason carieth far more probabilitie theÌ„ M.W. Thus he reasoneth Iactat Sotus se Christo nihil detrahere sed potius glorificare sed coÌ„tra
a refuter of errors make this a light one had you any part ether of the spirite of S. Paule S. Cipriā S. Austine or such Saintes of the Catholike Church or some zeale and sense of your owne Gospel and religion how could this euer haue slipt out of your penne to cal them most holy who by your doctrine were as far from al true holynes as euer was Scribe or Pharisee to cal thē most holy who had not in them the first stepp or degree where holines beginneth for whereas to holines first of al and principally is required faith in the death and passion of Christ then zeale and feruour in good woorkes to cal a man holy without the first is to commend for strenght and valor a man that hath neuer a sound ioynt or to praise for eloquence such a one whose tongue is cutt out of his head In the number of Christians professors of Christianity there haue bene from the beginning many that haue liued very hard seuere lyues that haue bestowed their goods amōge the poore that after many labours and trauails rare workes of extraordinarie zeale haue at lenght suffered death for the testimony of Christ And this oftentimes chaūced in the primitiue Church within the tyme of the first persecutions before Constantinus Magnus yet if such men liued and died schismatikes that is not beleeuing rightly in the church did euer any true Christian holde them for good holie If I spake vvith the tongue of men and angels saith the Apostle and knevv al mysteries and could moue mountaines if I bestovved al my goods vpon the poore and my bodie to the fier for the testimonie of Christ yet wanting the charitie of my brethren being without ecclesiasticall vnitie it profiteth me nothing wherevpon S. Ciprian They cānot dvvell vvith God that be not in vnitie vvith the Church though they burne amidst the flames being deliuered to the fier or cast to vvild beastes so yeld their lyues yet that shal not be to them a crovvne of faith but a punyshment of infidelitie such a one may be slaine he can not be crovvned he professeth him self such a Christiā as the deuil many times pretendeth him self to be Christ For as S. Austine saith vvhosoeuer is separated from this Catholike Church though he thinke him self to liue verie commendablie yet by reason of this only offence that he is deuided from the vnitie of Christ in his Catholike Churche he shal not haue life eternal but the vvrath of God remaineth vpon him And is al this true of men Christians by profession beleeuing rightly in euerie other article of faith onely erring in a secondarie point against the visible church and is it not much more true when the error runneth so grossly against the first and chief and capital article of Christianitie and that proper and peculier part whēce Christianitie hath his name the death and passion of our sauiour the verie hart life and soule of our religion can a fault against the bodie so pollute and contaminate a man that he becometh with al his supposed holines an infidell vvicked prophane an enemy of God and a damnable creature and can such sacriledge against the head be so light and contemptible that the offender remaineth notwithstanding faithfull a good Christiā and most holie S. Paule in the beginning when the law of Moyses was not yet quite abolished nor the gospel so vniuersallie and clearlie published said of the Galatians who would haue ioyned the law with the gospell O ye sensles Galatians vvho hath bevvitched you not to obey the truth Beholde I Paule tell you that if you be circumcided Christ shal profite you nothing and though an Angel of heauen teach you so that is preach you workes wherebie you should be withdrawen from Christ anathema be he that is the curse of God light vpon him how thē may a Christian that ether loueth or feareth Christ thus extenuate the fathers error being by M. W. declaration in substance the self same by reason of circumstance farre more haynous the light of the gospel spread more larglie the truth of doctrine more deepely rooted the law more vndoubtedlie abolished and euerie part of Christian religion more clearly acknowledged and professed wherefore in this I take M. Whit. inexcusablie rather for a Pagane then for a Christian when he saith The fathers by their penitentiall vvorkes derogated from Christ and thrusting them selues into his roome ascribed to their ovvne inuentions the satisfying of Gods vvrath and remission of their sinnes and yet for al this calleth them sanctissimas most holy whereas this being true they were the most impious and detestable men that euer the sunne saw Luther in his booke aduersusfalsò nominatum ordinem episcoporum describing his iustifiing faith writeth thus although wickedly yet agreablie to his owne doctrine and the common doctrine of the protestants Marke me saith he vvhat is Christian faith Christian faith is to beleeue that by no vvorkes but by onlie faith in Christ as thy mediatour and by mercy in him geuen thee freely thou art iustified and saued Gal. 1. so as a man despaire of all his ovvne strength vvorkes and endeuours and depende altogether of an other mans merites and an other mans iustice Iudaical faith is to entend to be iustified to blot out thy sinnes and be saued by thy ovvne strength and merites Rom. 10. by this Christ is cast avvay To like effect he writeth in his second commentarie vpon the Galatians expounding these wordes his qui natura non sunt dii seruiebatis ye serued them vvhich by nature vvere not gods vpon these words he maketh this question and thus solueth it is it all one in S. Paule to depart from the promise to the lavv from faith to vvorkes and to serue gods vvhich by nature are not gods I ansvvere vvhosoeuer falleth from the article of iustification he becommeth ignorant of God and is an idolater And therefore it is al one vvhether he returne to the lavv or to the vvorshipping of idols al is one vvhether he be a monke a Turke a Ievv or Anabaptist for this article once taken avvay there remaineth nothing but mere error hipocrisie impietie idolatrie although in shevv there appeare excellent truth vvorship of God holines c. Yea speaking expresly of the auncient fathers and in respect of this special matter he most wickedly but most plainly adiudgeth them to hell fier for their wicked faith in this verie cause I speake not saith he against the papistes for their life but for their faith because they vvil not come to God by only faith but by faith and vvorkes and therfore if the fathers those old papistes liued now I would speake vnto thē as I do to these new papistes thus stand his wordes Si illa facies veteris papatus c. if that face and forme of old papistrie stoode novv if that discipline vvere
able to proue any of these articles by any one cleare or playne clause or sentence ether of scriptures or of the old Doctors or of any old general Councel or by any example of the primitiue Church vvithin 600. yeres after Christ I promise to geue ouer and subscribe vnto him Thus M. Iewel promised and do you promise as much what els and so longe as you haue a day to liue you wil stand in defence here of But how dare you say so whereas litle know you what al the doctors haue written and much lesse know you what books of theirs hereafter may be found and your selues if you remember not long sithence in your owne wasted libraries found out certaine straunge sermons in the Saxon tonge against some knowen and confessed partes of religion as you wold pretend And how cā you so confidently hazard your faith if you haue any vpon one sentence or clause of those men of whom sundrie times you professe that they wrote clauses sentences chapters and bookes in defence of as grosse errors as these Remēber your stomake against them in this same booke thus you write Al our faith and religion you meane I suppose so far as it is allowed by act of Parlamēt and practised within the Q. dominions for other ye defend not is grounded not vpon humane but vpon diuine autoritie Therefore if you bring against it vvhat some one father hath beleeued or vvhat the fathers al together haue deliuered except the same be proued by testimonies of scripture it vvaygheth nothing it proueth nothing it concludeth nothing for the fathers are such vvitnesses that they also haue neede of scriptures to be their vvitnesses if deceaued by error they haue said ought differing from the scriptures hovv soeuer they may be pardoned erring through vvant of vvit vve can not be pardoned if because they erred vve also vvil erre vvith them Being thus perswaded touching them all how dare you venture your faith vppon a clause or sentence of any one It is a peece of faith far more sure by al antiquitie and more surely grounded in the hart of any catholike that Christ is perfect God consubstantial and equal to his father then any of these paradoxes can be possiblie setled in your opinions and we honour the fathers much more then you do yet was there euer any Catholike so frantike mad that would promise to subscribe to Arianisme if out of any father greeke or latin within 600. yeares any one clause or sentence might be brought against the catholike beleefe wherefore this verie assertion is a most sure argument that you haue no kind of faith no faith I say at all nether diuine nor humane not diuine because you would neuer so lightlie esteeme it nor vpon so smal warrant hazard it not humane because it wel appeareth that nether you nether maister Iewel euer meant to stand to that which to the world in publike writing ye haue so solemly promised Wherefore albeit touching you affected as you are I accompt this labour as clearly lost as if I should water a fruitles tree tvvise dead and plucked vp by the rootes yet for the readers cōmoditie that he may perceaue how ignorant and foolish and proude and fantastical that vaunte of M. Iewels was and how like it is that you who know much lesse yet comonly who more bold then such can maynteine the quarel and wade thorough that myre wherein M. Iew. him self stucke fast I wil speake a few wordes of these his principal questions And because I couet so far as may be to cut of al occasion of cauilling I wil not run to any other doctors lest you take exceptiō against them then those who are named here of M. Iewel as his pretended maisters in these heresies and againe out of them I wil bring nothing but that only which I haue learned of your owne writers and read in your owne bookes and that againe in such sense without any alteration as your selues alleage them So that your heroical courage in answering shal first be exercised vpon these your owne brethren and what so euer blunted dartes you shal cast against me they shal not reach vnto me but thorough their sydes I wil passe ouer Christ and S. Paule vvho taught M. Ievvel these heresies as he saith which is not verie likely whether he meane in ieast or in earnest seing S. Paule willeth vs so to detest any kind of heretike that after one or two warninges we should let him alone and suffer him to perishe in his sinne knovving that he is damned in his ovvne iudgment our sauiour chargeth vs to hold them for no better then ethniks and publicanes who shal oppose them selues vnto his church and therefore i◠can not be that ether of those should teach you that for which before hand they threaten and assure you of damnation But Anacletus and Xistus old bisshops of the Romane church before that Sea grew to this vsurped primacie they perhaps taught you this herisie that the bishop of Rome hath no soueraintie ouer the rest of bishops and that such claime is altogether Antichristian If that be so then egregious lyers are your brethren the makers of the Centuries who tel vs the cleane contrarie Anacletus say they in the epistles vvhich beare his name in the general regiment of churches so ioyneth them together that to the Romane churche he attributeth primacie and excellencie of povver ouer al churches and ouer the vvhole flocke of the Christian people and that by the autoritie of Christ saing to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I build my church c. the second sea after that he maketh the church of Alexandria by reason of S. marke scoler of S. Peter The third Antioche because S. Peter abode there before he came to Rome degrees of Bishops he maketh thus The bisshop of Rome is placed first as the supreme head of the church vvho though he erre yet vvil he not haue him to be iudged of others but to be tolerated the second place haue Patriarkes or primates the third Metropolitanes the fovrth Archbishops and aftervvard bishops he saith also that certaine cities receaued primates from the blessed apostles and from S. Clement epist 3.1 Tom. Conciliorum pa. 63. The same Anacletus appointing how controuersies in particular churches should be taken vp ended after the order of S. Paule 1. Cor. 5. willeth that greate matters should be referred to the higher bishops and primates but if greater difficulties arise or causes fal out among the bishops primates them selues let them be brought to the Sea Apostolike if such appealt be made for so the Apostles ordayned by the apoinment of our Sauiour that the greater and harder questiōs should alvvayes be brought to the Apostolike Sea vpon vvhich Christ builte his vniuersal church Mat. 16. And Xistus who succeded not long after Anacletus in his 2.
epistle nameth him selfe the bishop of the vniuersal Apostolike church and vvilleth others to appeale to the Apostolike Sea as to the head These are the first and most auncient that M. Iewel findeth of whom he learned his heresie against the primacie of the Romane church and verie aunciēt they are in deede the one being the fourth the other the eight in order frō S. Peter But Christian reader was he not a good scholer that of these maisters could gather such doctrine of such flowers could sucke out such poyson or can we marueyle if they haue a feate to peruert any thing be it neuer so plainelie and trulye spoken who can crie out vpon such fathers speaking so roundly say O Xistus O Anacletus you taught vs these heresies you taught vs that the bishop of Rome for challenging primacie ouer the church is the precursor of Antichrist But you wil answere as M. Iewel teacheth you that these epistles be not the epistles of Anacletus or Xistus but counterfeit and set forth by some other in their names But what vncredible peruersitie and contradiction and impudencie is this or how can he so say for saw he euer any other bookes of theirs besides these epistles could he for him selfe or you for him pretēd any such knowledge most certaine it is you can not and therefore learning ought against the Romane Sea from Xistus and Anacletus he must needes learne it hence and so ether this maketh against the Romane Sea which thing by Illyricus and other your owne writers is at large refuted and who hauinge the forehead of a man can say otherwyse or M. Iewel in naming these two Popes at Paules crosse for his maisters in that heresie may be an example of a more dissolute man and more rechles in lying and abusing his audience then euer before or perhaps euer sithence occupied that place Let vs trie some other of his maisters S. Gregorie and S. Leo vpon whom first in like maner he exclameth and the protestants them selues those that be farthest gone in bold deniall of any thinge yet denie not but the bookes and epistles extant in their names were truly made and leaft vnto vs by them And did they trow you teach him these heresies let vs heare vvhat they say and that in no other vvordes and sense then those forenamed your owne doctors make them to speake and point you to the bookes epistles and chapters vvhere you shal find that vvhich they vvrite The bishops of Rome that liued in this fift age vvithin 500 yeres after Christ affirme that the Romane church is chiefe of al others so doth Leo in his sermon de anniuersario assumptionis et epistola 89. ad episcopos per prouinciam Viēnensem The bishops that gouerned the Romane church in that age required of other Archbishops that they should make relation to them if there fell any matter of controuersie so Leo vvriteth in his 46. epistle to Anatolius Archbishop of Constātinople If there be any thing that doth require consultation vvith speede let relation therof be made vnto me that after I haue examined the matter my diligence may apoint vvhat is to be done Againe epist 62. he requireth of Maximus Archbishop of Antioche that he acknovvledge the priuileges of the third Sea and oftē tymes vvrite to the Sea Apostolike hovv the churches there increase Also they tooke to thē this authoritie to reproue other bishops if they did ought amisse they prescribed vnto them vvhat they should do and apointed them orders in ceremonies so Leo epist 86. reprehēdeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia because he receaued to communiō the Pelagians before they had condemned their error He reprehendeth also the Africane bishops in the prouince of Mauritania Caesariensis for making bishops certaine persōs vnlavvfully epist 87. and he rebuketh the bishops of Germanie Fraunce for contemning the order of their felovvbishops epis 88. And vvheras Anatolius bishop of Constantinople seemed not to beleeue rightly of the incarnation of the sonne of God Leo chargeth him to put his faith in vvriting and send it to the bishop of Rome and therein to protest openly that he vvil excommunicate that man vvho so euer beleeueth or teacheth of the incarnation of Christ othervvise then is the professiō of the Catholikes and of the bishop of Rome epist 33. So Proterius Archbishop of Alexandria is reported to haue sent letters touching his faith to Leo. epist 68. And Leo epist 69. signifieth to the Emperour Marcianus that Proterius is a Catholike They also confirmed bishops in their bishopriks so Leo confirmed Maximus patriarch of Antioche in his bishoprike though he vvere made in the Councel of Ephesus of vvhich Councel al other acts vvere abrogated act 7. Concil Chalced. and that the same Leo confirmed to Proterius bishop of Alexandria the old rights of that Sea according to the Canons and aūcient priuileges it is noted epist 68. Leonis ad Iulianū et 69. ad Imperatorem Marcianum Leo in his 33. epistle to Theodosius requireth that he take order that the bishop of Constantinople send to him a vvriting vvherin he professe to embrace the true doctrine and to condemne al that dissent from the same Also they sent abrode legates vvho in far distant prouinces tooke notice of the errors of heretikes and corrected them so Leo sent his legates to Cōstantinople to vvithdravv Eutiches from his error as appeareth epist 11. ca. 6. ad Flauianum so he sent legates to the Emperour epist 34. to Ephesus that they taking vnto them the Archbishop of Constantinople should absolue those that had bene deceaued by Dioscorus and vvere novv content to do penance epist 44. 46. In like maner epist. 87. sending legates in to Africa he cōmaundeth that Donatus a Nouatian be receaued to communion if he send to Rome a vvritinge touching the condemnation of that error They required also of Archbishops that if of themselues they could not determine any thing they should send it to the Sea Apostolike vvithal they charged thē to receaue and obserue their decrees made against heretikes so Leo epist 84. cap. 7. prescribeth this order to the bishop of Thessalonica in Thracia that tvvo prouincial Councels be held euery yere if there fal out any hard matter and it be not decided by the iudgement of the bishop of Thessalonica that it be referred to the bishop of Rome and cap. 11. he vvilleth that the contentions risinge among the bishops be referred to him vvith a declaration of things done in such matters The same Leo cōmaundeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia that he cause al his bishops priestes clearks openly to cōdemne certaine heresies and their authors and to approue al synodal decrees vvhich the authoritie of the Apostolike Sea had confirmed for the rooting out of heresie that they testifie so much by their subscriptions epist 86. Many things Christian reader of good weight importāce I passe ouer
beast or tree we may not say as Iacob doth in Genesis vidi dominum facie ad faciem I haue seene God face to face when he wrestled with the Angell or as Moses Aaron Nadab and Abiu in the mount viderunt deum Israel savv the God of Israel and vnder his feete as it vvere a vvorke of sapphyre stone or as the prophetes many tymes savv God sitting vpon his throne Which if it be true how much more boldlie and truely may we affirme that we see Christ in the B. Sacrament where we haue most certaine warrant that his humanitie diuinitie are presente after a most singular and effectual and substantial maner Our sauiour talking with the blinde man vnto whom he gaue sight sayd to him doest thou beleeue in the sonne of God he ansvvered said vvho is he lord that I may beleeue in him And Iesus said to him both thou hast seene him he that talketh vvith thee he it is and forthvvith he fell dovvne and adored him This by your opinion must be false because he only saw the external lineaments of a mortal man but saw not nor could see the sonne of God being him self God and god no man hath seene at any tyme and not only no man hath seene but nether can see for as God him selfe sayth non videbit me homo et viuet man shal not see me and liue Yet as Christ was truth it self so he taught truely and by reason of his diuine and eternal person ioyned to that humanitie the poore man saw the eternal soÌ„ne of God and so though after a far different maner those prophetes and Patriarches saw God And therefore to you it should not seeme straunge if S. Chrysostome and the Catholikes professe that truly they see Christ offered for most true it is It should seeme no more straunge I say then it was straunge for Christ to poynte to that which he had in his handes and gaue to his Apostles and say withal this which you see is my bodie and the same vvhich shal be deliuered for you which body deliuered for vs if it were Christ then the Apostles by Christes demonstration saw Christ and in such sort as we see him So that first I answere that your taking that for a thinge plaine and euident amongest vs which is cleane contrarie most false proceedeth of ignoraÌ„ce of the Catholike faith against which you write so coÌ„uinceth you of rashnes to refute that which you vnderstand not Next I say that you are as ignorant in the doctrine of your brethren the Lutherans for this they affirme as wel as we though far more absurdlye For reteyninge stil the substance of bread wine yet because of the real presence they acknowledge that bread to be the body of Christ and so see the body of Christe and applie hereunto that auncient rule of our forefathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thereby adore it and geue to it godlie honor and beleeue that they take receaue and touche Christe him selfe and accompte you not to be their brethren though you so basely will needes clayme their kinred but to be brethren of the old Ethnikes Apostataes who for like beleefe scorned mocked the auncient Christians as you do vs now So Martin Luther confirming that which in the first place I haue said of gods exhibiting him selfe to vs in creatures writeth thus Although Christe be euery vvhere in all creatures yet vve may not looke for him vvithout the vvorde VVherefore he hath appointed vs a certayne vvay to finde him hovv and vvhere he is to be sought and founde This they see not nether vnderstande vvho say it is absurd to affirme or beleeue that Christ is in bread and vvine because they vnderstand not vvhat maner thinge the Kingdome of Christ is c. He is most present in his vvorde albeit he is not present in that sort as he is here in the sacrament by vvhich he exhibiteth to the ChristiaÌ„s his body and bloud by the ministerie of the vvorde ioyned in bread and vvine And that the old Paganes in this kinde of infidelitie were the fathers of our Zuinglian Protestants he sheweth in the same place writing thus The devil laboureth saith he to sup vp the egge and leaue vs the shell that is from the bread and vvine to take avvay the body and bloud of Christe so that nothing remayne but playne bakers bread And here they mocke vs at their pleasure callinge vs shamefullie sarcophagos and haemopotas eaters of flesh and drinkers of bloud and that vve vvorshippe a god made of bread as they say as of old that naughtie man loden vvith all synne Auerroes sayd vvho slydinge backe from our fayth slaundered and reproched the faythful Christians sayng that there vvas not vnder the sunne a more vvicked people then vvere the Christians because they deuoured their ovvne God vvhich vvickednes no people euer is read to haue committed And Kemnitius in his examen Concilii Tridentini vpon this grouÌ„de of the real presence approueth the custome of the Church in adoringe Christ in the sacrament by the authoritie of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose in Psal 98. by Eusebius Emissenus and S. Gregorie Nazianzene and saith it is impietie to do the contrarie Thirdly if you had bene but so conuersante in Caluine as your profession requireth you could not so far haue bene ouerseene in this easie distinction knowen to Catholike Lutheran and Zuinglian although when Caluine wrote thus perhaps he was more then halfe a Lutheran and not so far gone in Zuinglianisme as after In his little booke de caena domini thus he writeth The bread and vvine are rightely called the body and bloud of Christ because they be as it vvere instruments by vvhich Christ doth distribute them vnto vs vve haue a verie apte example in a like matter VVhen god vvould that the holy Ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ he represented him in the figure of a doue Iohn the Baptist rehearsing the story sayth that he savve the holy Ghost descending If vve looke narovvlie vve shall finde that he savve nothing but a doue For the essence of the holy Ghost is inuisible Yet because he knevv that vision to be no vaine figure but a most certaine signe of the presence of the holy ghost he boldlie affirmeth that he savve him because it vvas represented in such sort as he could beare So in the communion vvhich vve haue in the body bloud of Christ the misterie is spirituall vvhich vve can nether see vvith eye nether comprehend vvith humaine vvâ—â—â— Therefore is it shevved vs by signes yet so that it is not a naked or only figure but ioâ—ned to his truth and substance Rightlie therefore is it called the body vvhich it dâ—th not only represent but also exhibâ—te vnto vâ— Thus Caluine teachinge and prouâ—nge by scripture that truely we see Christ though not
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
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
he can not for the contrarie part that the greeke is more cōmodious and fauorable to vs then to them see thou Christian reader the preface of the new testament and thou shalt find it iustified by sundrie manifest examples and touching the hebrue somewhat shal be spoken hereafter Thirdly wherein is the state of this questiō he telleth vs that the foūtaines are most pure and holesome the latin edition most corrupt and infected By the fountaines he meaneth the vulgar hebrue and greeke as they are now commonly printed which they pretend to folow By the latin edition that which is vsed in the Church of Rome and hath bene these thousand yeres and is approued by the general Councel of Trent To the end thou mayst the better iudge of that which shal be spokē thus much must I warne thee of before touching the historical knowledge of this cōtrouersie that whereas in S. Aug. S. Hieroms tyme there was maruelous varietie of new Testamentes in latin whereof rose some confusion and trouble in the Church that godly and learned man Damasus then Pope of Rome and ruler of the Church tooke order with S. Hierom that he should correct one before vsed which otherwise was least faultie which afterwardes should be commended to the Church by that supreme authoritie Thus much S. Hierom signifieth in diuers places especiallie in his preface before the new Testament dedicated to the same Pope Nouum opus saith he me facere cogis ex veteri c. You cōstraine me to make a nevv vvorke of an old that I after so many copies of the scriptures dispersed thorough the vvorld should sit as a certaine iudge and determine vvhich of them agree vvith the true greeke And afterwardes shewing the difficultie of such a worke how daungerous it was and subiect to the reprehensions of many he comforteth him self principally with this That thou speaking to Damasus vvhich art the high priest doest commaūd it so to be done Tu qui summus es sacerdos fieri iubes This vvorke vvhen S. Hierom had accomplished and deliuered vp yet nether vvas his iudgment so absolutely and vniuersally in euery part folovved that vvithout farther search and trial it was by by approued But at length after due examination and some alteration of lesser pointes as we find by S. Hierom him self being approued by the Pope allowed by the Church it grew to a more general vsage and to be most frequented in publike writinges commentaries scholes and al places of Christian excercise This is that which we cal the common latin edition which albeit it haue some places translated obscurely some vnaptly some copies corrupted by false writing or printing c. yet comparing it with the greeke now extant we say it is far more pure and vncorrupt and nothing so subiect to cauilling wrangling by great diuersitie of different copies The like we say of the old testament a great part where of was translated by S. Hierom by order of the same Pope most of al corrected and brought in to ecclesiastical vse sauing the psalmes which could not be done so easely because thoroughout Christēdom the principal part of the Seruice in al churches consisted of them and therefore could not wel be altered without much trouble and scandal as we gather by S. Austin and which therefore we retaine stil as they were vsed in the primitiue church long before S. Hieroms time according to the version of the 70. Touching both these Testaments translated and corrected thus we say First that against them M. W. in his long discourse of allegations speaketh neuer a word and so speaketh neuer a word to the purpose Secondarely that they are purer thē are the fountaines which we now haue whereof this man speaketh so much and for ought may appeare vnderstandeth but litle Next that how so-euer some smale faultes may be found in them absolutely they haue no error touching ether doctrine or maners Last of al that to refuse them and appeale from them to the greeke and hebrue as the heretikes do is the high way to denial of all faith to Apostasie from Christ his religion and so to plaine Atheisme These foure pointes I wil brieflie touch in order The first is that M. VV. in al his long talke about the fountaines speaketh neuer a word to the purpose against vs but rather much al against him self For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Hierom and S. Ambrose and the church then troubled vvith the great diuersitie of their latin bibles reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals and vve novv find those fountaines and originals differing frō that reformed bible vvhy shal vve not conclude that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted not so saith M. W. but contraryvvise rather the latin bibles haue bene corrupted VVhat reason leadeth him thus to speake vvhat probabilitie moueth him to imagine that so many hundred yeres hebrue bookes could continue vvithout error being vvritten out by a fevv and they for the most part Iewes ignorant enemies of Christ and his Church destitute of the spirite of God men geuen ouer in to a reprobate sense rather then the latin publikely read expounded by thowsandes in euerie prouince of the Christian vvorld garded by infinite good men by Sainctes for life and full of the holy Ghost liuing in that church vvherein properly vvas fulfilled the prophecie of Esaie made by God to Christ his sonne to his Catholike Church in him This is my couenant vvith them saith our lord my spirit vvhich is in thee and the vvordes vvhich I haue put in thy mouth shal not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seede from the mouth of thy seedes seede saith our Lord from this tyme forth for euermore Wherein God promiseth the Church that she shal be a faithful and perpetual obseruer of his vvord and testament Which vvarrant you neuer find made in like sorte to the synagoge But this notwithstanding you perhaps prefer this synagoge before the Church and Iewes before the Christians that is in effect Moyses before Christ and therefore are content to speake and thinke more honorably of them vvith vvhom you ioyne more nylie and to vvhom you beare a better affection yet hovv soeuer your minde be therein S. Hierom cōmending the hebrue fountaines in his time maketh nothing in the world for you in these daies except he say that in al ages to come the hebrue should remaine stil pure and incontaminate and the latin should againe be corrupted and the Church though warned by the trouble which she susteined in his time about that matter yet afterwardes should cōtemne so pretious a thing as the written word of God is and runne in to a far greater inconuenience then before through extreme negligence nether haue the latin bible true which once was reformed and made agreable to the
they I shal I doubt neuer be vvorthie to be named scholers example vvhereof take thou Charkes scornful abusing of Father Campian in the Tower for ignorance in such trifles as these are or were I disposed to disgrace the fountaines and originals which I am not but honour them as I may and sauing the euident truth and faith of Christ which standeth fast and vnmoueable though heauen and earth fall much more though the Iewish Pharisees and Scribes write their text amisse this cause faith I say foreprised I esteeme of them as of things deseruing much studie and reuerence because how soeuer some grosse errors partly of malice partly of ignorance haue crept in yet commonly and for the most part the text I hold to be true and sincere And againe I suppose this kinde of writing can not be but tedious to the English reader whose profit I principally intend and therefore will go from these particularities so far as I may to talke of a few resonable the same general arguments and questions wherein M.W. if he haue some part of that wit intelligence and modestie which a scholer diuine should haue wil not I hope much stande against me And first gladly would I learne of him what reason he and his fellowes haue why they should thinke the hebrew text to be so inuiolate so sincere and vpright is it because of Gods promise and prouidence or of mans circuÌ„spection and wisdome if because of Gods promise where finde they any such how many examples in the scriptures haue they to the contrarie whole bookes of the prophetes are perished bookes of singular coÌ„moditie made by Gods owne appointment and they perished then in that time of the sinagoge when Iacob vvas the peculiar people of God and Israel the lot of his inheritance when of al nations they vvere to God a holy nation a kingly priesthode when al other people vvere suffered to go their ovvne vvaies the Iewes only were in Gods special protection For touching the bookes of the auncient prophets somtime extant and now not appearing we reade coÌ„monly in the old testameÌ„t as of Liber bellorum domini The booke of the vvarres of our Lord The booke of the iust men The booke of Iehu the sonne of Hanani The bookes of Semeias the prophete and Addo and Samuel vvrote in a booke the lavv of the kingdome hovv kings ought to rule laid it vp before our lorde and the vvorkes of Salomon vvere vvritten in the vvordes of Nathan the Prophete and in the bookes of Ahias the Silonite and in the visioÌ„ of Addo the Seer and many other which were to long to rehearse VVhich entier bookes of the warres of our lord of the iust of those excellent prophets of Iehu of Semeias of Addo of Samuel of Nathan of Ahias and others are quite perished and perished then when the Iewes were so chosen a people such a kingdome in such order gouernment of Kings and princes and Senate ecclesiastical regiment And now when they are no people haue no gouernment no king no Priest no comparable regiment may we reasonably thinke their diuine and ecclesiasticall bookes to haue bene so warelie kept that euerie parte is safe euerie parcel sound no points letters or titles lost al sincere perfit and absolute If the protestaÌ„ts will claime this to them by mans wisdome and policie see how notably they contradicte themselues Al the bishops and princes and states of Christendome were not wise inough by the protestants opinioÌ„ these thousande yeres past to keepe them selues in the true religion and Gospell of Christ But whereas vntil 600. yeres as we learne by M. Iewels chalenge they were protestants and enemies of the Masse of the Real presence of the Pope of Rome and as M. W. telleth vs here vniuersally protestaÌ„ts quo ad praecipuas religionis partes in the principall parts of religion they fell from that pure protestant-Gospel to serue Antichrist to worship bread and wine for God to adore Images which is most grosse idolatrie in steed of a true bible and word of God to haue our coÌ„mon translation which is most impure fullest of corruptioÌ„ Al this M.W. telleth vs and he telleth vs in this booke and it is the common songe of them al. And therefore how is it credible that al this while the Iewes should be so wise so prudent so politike and circuÌ„specte that they admitted no faults kept their bible so sincere and immaculate that there only the water of life was reserued and the minde meaning of the holie Ghost vvas to be found no-vvhere so assuredly as there what is this but to make the Christians al this while more brutish then beastes and the Iewes almost equal to Angels Againe so great likenes and similitude is there betwene some hebrew letters that excellent learned men haue bene deceaued by mistaking one for an other as appeareth by comparing the olde translations of the bible with the later and S. Hierom affirmeth the same of the Septuaginta This if a man would declare by examples I thinke he might gather some hundreds out of the psalter I wil note only one verse of a short psalme which also may serue for a higher pointe In the psalme 109 after our translation thus we reade with the Septuaginta Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex vtero ante luciferum genuite The ProtestaÌ„ts for the more parte as we see by Marlorate folowing therein Bucere Musculus Caluine and Pomerane translate it thus Populus tuus cum voluntariis oblationibus in die exercitus tui in pulchritudine sanctitatis ex vtero ab aurora tibiros adolescentiae tuae The english bible of the last edition differing notably both froÌ„ olde and new from vs and the Protestants translate thus Thy people shal come vvillingly all the time of assembâ—ing thine armie in holie beauty the youth of thy vvoÌ„be shal be as the morning devv which translation is farthest from the hebrew farthest from al sense and reason for who would make youth to rule vvombe and ioyne them together being sundred so far and the bible geuen out two yeres before hath scant one worde like and touching the later part is cleane opposite for thus it translateth In the day of thy pâ—vvâ—r shal the people offer thee free-vvil offeringes the devv of thy birth is of the vvombe of the morning there is youth of the vvombe and devv of the morning here is devv of the birth or youth for that is one word in hebrew and vvombe of the morning If a man would translate it precisely vsing only the libertie to make choise of diuers significations which the hebrew words yelde and drawe it so far as the hebrew wil beare to the sense of the Septuaginta which I take to be the best then word for word thus it should
stand Tecum principatus in die poteÌ„tiae tuae in decoribus sanctitatis ab vterâ— Ã Lucifero tibi ros natiuitatis tuae How euer it be framed great difference wil rise of necessitie amongst diuers interpreters And whence proceedeth that one great cause is the diuers significatioÌ„ of one word The first which the 70. turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tecum vvith thee others populus tuâ—s thy people is in the hebrew one word with so smale a difference of one point as is possible The next expressed of the 70. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principatus may be as well signified by the hebrew as spontanea oblatio The third which the 70. turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Hierom fortitudinis the Protestants exercitus may truely signifie them al povver vertue strength liberalitâ—e and armie and so aurora or Lucifer is the same word But that which chiefely I note in this sentence whatsoeuer other difference was betweene the old hebrew text and the new is the diuersitie of sense rising through diuersitie of reading vpon occasion of similitude in the hebrew letters as for example The Septuaginta read in spâ—endoribus or decoribus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in brightnes whom commonly al the Protestants folow S. Hier. in mentibus in mountaines the difference commeth of the likenes of two hebrew letters daleth and resâ—h The last word the 70. rendered by genuite I haue begotten thee Which word of how great strength force it is in this place may be perceaued by vew of the Apostle Paules argument who out of that verse word proueth the eternal diuinitie of our Sauiour S. Hierom translated that word adolescentiae tuae as commonly do the Protestants What is the occasion of this difference the great likelines of two wordes the Septuaginta read the first S. Hierom the second The printes now vsed though in sense folow S. Hierom yet misse one of his letters and therefore come nearer to the reading of the 70. And this verse letter vau for iod hath certainly made disagreemeÌ„t in some other places As where the Septuaginta read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam my strength vvill I kepe to thee and so S. Hierom read and translated now it is in the hebrew fortitudineÌ„ eius his strength vvil I keepe to thee to the great peruerting of the whole sense and sentence A like error to that Genes 3. if it be an error as many verie probably rather thinke it is none ipsa conteret caput tuum for ipse or ipsum about which the Protestants keepe such a stur But what should I rehearse examples of such smale errors committed by learned men by Rabbines by S. Hierom by the Septuaginta vvhereas the protestants sticke not to charge directly the verie Apostle S. Paule with error in this kind For whereas S. Paule writeth That nether eye hath seene nor eare heard nether hath it entred in to the hart of man vvhat God hath prepared for those that loue him iis qui diligunt illum whereby we proue that heauen is prepared as a reward for charitie and the workes thereof and so refel their mathematical solifidian fansie many pretie answeres they geue vs as that S. Paule doth after his fashioÌ„ very finely writhe the place So Luther Paulus sententiam commodè detorsit Illyricus That to loue is as much as to beleeue and so charitie as much as faith and then to be saued by only faith why may we not interprete it To be saued by only charitie Qui diligunt saith he pâ—nitur pro iis qui ad eum supplices fide confugiunt Fides per effectum suum dilectionem declaratur Those that loue him that is those that by faith humbly flye vnto him Faith is noted by his effect that is charitie But Peter Martyr goeth an other way to worke and thinketh that the Apostle read not right Thus writeth he Diligentibus se habet Apostolus Propheta vero dixit expectantibus et diserimen agnoscitur prouenisse a magna similitudine duorum elementorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Apostle hath the vvord louing the Prophet hath trusting or expecting and it is vvel knovven that this difference grevve from the great similitude of tvvo hebrevv letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so much as among the hebrevves the same verbe vvritten vvith one letter signifieth to trust or expect vvith the other to loue vehemently vvhich Paule folovved In which censure Christian reader besides his sacrilegious contempt in diuinitie wherein thou maist learne to care the lesse for their condemning and railing at the fathers when they are so sawcie with this singular Apostle besides this prophane wickednes in diuinitie I say he fowly belieth the Apostle against al humanity For the secoÌ„d word which he obiecteth hath no such significatioÌ„ if he meant some other word somewhat reseÌ„bling the first as other of his brethreÌ„ gesse yet nether caÌ„ they serue his turne for so much as the graÌ„matical rules wil not beare such construction as against Erasmus and him Beza hath truely noted But graunt we to P. Martir that which he would haue let S. Paule I wil not say indued with the holy Ghost so abundantly Paule that piller foundation of the Church so directed by God as he could not erre but only Paule brought vp from his infancy in the law of Moyses in coÌ„tinual studie of the law and Prophetes at the feete of Gamaliel so noble a scholemaister let this Paule be deceaued in reading the Hebrew then how intolerable is their peruersitie who wil not suffer so much to be iudged of the common base vulgar ignorant scribes so malitiously bent against Christ and al Christianitie as before is noted But hovvsoeuer M. W. speaketh of his fountaynes and originâ—ls knovv thou Christian reader that other of his side far more skilfull then he without any contradiction acknovvledge vvhat soeuer I say Sebastianus Castalio by occasion defending him self agaynst such a one as M. W. seemeth to be writeth thus Videtur esse in ea opinione sicut et plerique omnes Iudaei et noÌ„nulli hac in parte Iudaizantes Christiani vt in hebraicis bibliis nullum vsque mendum irrepisse putet c. This good felovv seemeth to be of that opinion as in maner all Ievves are and some Christians dravving to Iudaisme in this respect that they thinke no error euer to haue creapt into the hebrevv bibles that God vvould neuer suffer that any vvord should be corrupted in those holie bookes as though the bookes of the old testament vvere more holie then those of the nevv in the vvhich nevv so many diuers readinges are founde in so many places or as though it vvere credible that God had more regarde of one or other litle vvord or
syllable then he had of vvhole bookes vvhereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost This Iudaical superstition c. Hetherto Castalio And D. Humfrey in his first booke de ratione interpretandi sayth Iudaismus quot locos deprauauerit c. The Ievvish superstition hovv many places it hath corrupted the reader may easely find out and iudge And in the next booke I like not that men should to much folovve the Rabbins as many do Nam quae Christum verum Messiam promittunt et annuÌ„ciant abâ—istis turpissimè câ—nspurcata sunt for those places vvhich promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthely depraued by them And Conradus Pellicanus sometime professor of hebrew in Zuricke writing vpon the 8â— psalme and those wordes of our trâ—nslation Conuertuntur ad câ—r vvhere 〈◊〉 cor the protestants according â—o the hebrâ—vv prints novv haue 〈◊〉 gesseth vvel no doubt riâ—htly that the difference came through the great likenes of tvvo letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prefeâ—reth our reading before the hebrewes vvithal accuseth the Iewes of al times not only since Christ but also befoâ—e of nâ—gligâ—nce in coÌ„â—eâ—uing theiâ— holie boâ—kes Thus he vvriteth The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one vvay vvhereas the Ievves â—ovv reade an other vvhich I say because I vvould not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the â—gnorance or slâ—uthfulnes of the oâ—d interpreter Rather vve haue cause to finde fault for vvant of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Ievves vvho both before Christs comming and fithence seeme to haue bene lesse carefull of the psalmes then of their ovvne Talmudicall songes And againe in the same volume vpon that verse of the psalme 108. Quis deducet me in ciuitatem munitam quis deducet me in Idumaeam vvho vvill bring me in to the sensed citie vvho vvill bring me in to Idumaea vvriteth thus The Syriake interpreter ether folovving or finding out or iâ—erâ—asing the fables of the Ievves translateth this verse after this sâ—r vvho vvil bring me in to that vvicked Rome vvho vvil bring me in to that Constantinople of the Idumeans sol centiously do the Rabbines of the Ievves abuse their authoritie not only in their commentaries but also in the translations of their lavv vvhich coÌ„monly are to be read vvhereby the miserable people reading so is easely seduced VVhere besides our principal purpose vve may learne vvithal that the Iewes haue one tricke of the ProtestaÌ„ts vz in to their bible coÌ„munioÌ„ bookes or such like vvherein is contâ—yned their maner of Seâ—uâ—ce to thrust besides the text glaunces against the Pope and Church of Rome as â—n deede the hatred of Christ Christianitie and that Church commonly runneth together The like testifieth Munster alleaging these vvordes of Abâ—n Ezra against the Christians Fâ—vv there vvere that beleeued in that man vvhoÌ„ these Christians haue made their Gâ—d and vvhen Rome did beleeue in the time of Constantine aâ—d altered the vvhole lavv and put in his banner the signe of the crucified man by the persvvasioÌ„ of that Monke of Idumaea that is the Romane bishop so Aben Ezra expoundeth it there vvere none through the vvorld that obserued that lavv besides a fevv Idumeans and here of it commeth that the kingdome of the Romanes is called the kingdome of Edom. Wherein a man may see and compare together the Iuâ—aical and Protestantical vayne in raylâ—ng at the Romane Church and those that liue in the vnitie of it To the Iâ—wes vve are Gentiles to the Protestantes vve are Idolaters In the Iewes speach and sense it is al one to say a Romane a Catholike or an Idumean that is a Gentile so is it in the speach and sense of the Protestantes saue that in steede of Catholike sometymes they vse the vvord Papist The Ievves peruert their diuine Seruice vvith the manifest abuse of scripture against the Romane faith and Church and do not our Ievvish Protestantes much more Cal to remembrance Christian reader their Geneua or rather Gehenna psalmes sung in their coÌ„gregations vvhere as they tel vs nothing souÌ„dâ—th but gods vvord the Canonical scripture see vvhether in any old Greeke Hebrew Latin or English psalters they find praying against the Pope to be deliuered froÌ„ al Papistrie That the Pope as wel as the Turke vvould thrust our of his throne our lord Iesus Christ Gods deare sonne vvhether in any old Creede ether Apostolike or made by Apostolike or honest men they are taught to beleeue release pardoÌ„ of their sinnes vvhich is in these mens diuinitie perfect entier iustification and that only by faith as in their rimâ—ng Creede vvithout rime or reason they sing Finally as the Ievvish Rabbines thrusting once in to their peoples eares that Rome is Edom and the Romane an Edomite mâ—ke that al scripâ—ure spoken against Edom soundeth against Rome euen so the Protestants telling their people that Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist make them forthwith beleeue that vvhatsoeuer the scripture hath â—gainst Babylon Antichrist that maketh iust against the Romane Church the Pope and Catholikes But to returne to our original matter and to drawe to an end of this question touching the pure fountaines originals for plaine and euident demonstration how true that is I referre M.VV. to these two general experimeÌ„tes which at his leasure he may vew and consider of One is the great diuersitie of reading which in many places of the hebrew old testament we find For example whereof let him peruse Exod. ca. 2. losue 22 and 23. Iudic. 3. the first of Samuel ca. 10 17 22 28. 2 Samuel 7. Esa 14 33 54 c. and Munsters notes vpon those chapters where he shall find the reading and sense oftentymes as far disagreing as blacke and white And Munst in his preface forewarneth the reader thereof Sometymes sayth he euen amongst the hebrvves in one sentence I haue found diuers reading For sometymes dissensions are sound amongst theÌ„ some thinking this to be the true reading some thinking contrarie An other experiment is that the hebrew printes wante now somewhat which certainly was in the first originals Example whereof may be the Psalme 144. which being made according to the hebrew alphabete and hauing the verses in number answering to the hebrew letters the first beginning with Aleph the second with Beth the third with Gimel c. as doth the Psal 33. therefore should certainly haue 22. verses as hath that other this lacketh one verse in al hebrew copies so wanted it euen in S. Hieroms tâ—me and euident it is that the error is in the hebrew where lacketh the 14. verse which should beginne with Nan as it is very playne by the translation of the 70 and by our common Psalter Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis
styl that parcel but most vvanted it and manifest it is that the Ievves nether in our time keepe so honorably the translation of the 70. in their sinagoges much lesse did they keâ—pe it in S. Iustines daies vvhen as appeareth by the vvhole discours and manifest vvordes of this author in this same place they much more detested it The third a ligno is vvanting in al greeke and hebrevv bibles is only reserued in our ecclesiastical Breuiarie certaine Doctors as Tertullian Lactantius Cassiodorus and S. Austin vvho notvvithstanding so readeth it as though it vvere the common reading in the churches of Africa in his time and maketh no mention of any other reading vvhere those vvords should be leaft out And from S. Hieroms time vntil our daies very probable it is that these errors and corruptions haue multiplied not only for the general and particular reasons already touched but for this especially that whereas since that time the Iewes obstinacie barbarousnes impietie and ignorance in their owne tonge hath much increased the Christians notwithstanding haue not had any great occasion to handle much or exercise that language therefore haue had smaler regard to bookes written therein without which as first of al they perfectly receaued the Christian faith and planted it in these partes of Christendome so without it haue they as perfectly continued in the same and now enlarged it euen to the extreme corners of the world and without the which they haue for these thousaÌ„d yers liued most christiaÌ„ly as Saintes christianly as Saintes finished their teÌ„poral liues after liued with Christ for euer And now touching M. W. question demaunding how the Church hath faithfully conserued the bookes of scriptures who thus findeth fault with the hebrew bibles as corrupt I answere as before that the Church hath most faithfully conserued the scriptures albeit not in this or that tonge which the wanton curiositie of euery fantastical heretike coueteth We haue the true word and gospel of Christ though perhaps we haue not ten words in that laÌ„guage which our Sauiour spake And then why may we not haue the law the prophetes though there were neuer an hebrew bible in the vvorld Againe vnreasonably demaundeth he of our church for hebrevv bibles vncorrupt vvhich perhaps neuer had any such and neuer vndertooke to keepe the vvord of God in that language more then in Arabike or Syriake no more then she vndertooke to keepe S. Matthevves Gospel in hebrevv or S. Paules epistle to the hebrevves But if she deliuer faithfully to the Christians that vvhich she receaued of Christ and his Apostles touching al parts of Christian faith and religion be it vvritten or vnvvritten in one language or other she performeth that vvhich Christ committed to her charge and vvhich is sufficient for the saluation of euery Christian and vvhereby she proueth her selfe to be the House and Church of the liuing God the sure Piller and ground of truth the Spovvse of Christ and faythful mother of al Christians M. D. Whitgift thinketh it vntolerable that the English ministers should appoint vvhat maner of apparel is coÌ„uenient for them selues to vveare vvhat ceremonies or rites should be vsed in their poore Seruice He by many arguments taketh from them al authoritie in such matter vvil haue the vvhole Ministerie altogether to depend be directed by the superior magistrates the Quene and the Lordes of her CouÌ„cel Then hovv much more vntolerable is it that some one or other single minister should appoint the vniuersal Church gouernours thereof in what maner and fashion the word of God must be kept in what language as it were in what kind of paper or parchement he wil haue it written As if some busye headed felow in a coÌ„mon welth not contented to be ruled preserued by his Prince in true religion iustice and quiet possessioÌ„ of his owne should farther take vpon him to prescribe vvhat maner priestes hovv qualified and in vvhat Vniuersitie brought vp should preach vnto him the vvord of God minister the sacraments vvhat sort of men should exequute vnto him iustice and examine his cases of law by what capitaynes of vvhat byrth countrie and experience by vvhat kind of defence open force or secret policie fight by sea or rather land strength of horsmen or footemen he vvil be mainteined in peace and quietnes And vvhat meaneth he to require for pure bibles in any language of our Church vvhich he holdeth for Antichristian and the prelates thereof and al other Catholikes for members of Antichrist For vvhiles he thus thinketh vvhat soeuer bibles hebrevv or not hebrevv Greeke or Arabike vve offer him he can by reason yelde no more credite vnto them then to our latin no more then to our traditions or any other thing proceeding from vvarrant and credite of such professed enemies of Christ as vvel and learnedly proueth S. Austin in his booke de vtilitate credendi Much more agreable to reason ChristiaÌ„ diuinitie is it for him and his to resort to their ovvne church of elect predestinate or hovv so euer he list to terme them vvhich hath so florished these many hundred yeres by vvitnes of their ecclesiastical stories by report of M. Fox in his Actes and monumentes Let him resort to the brethren of Lions to VVycleffe and the VVycleffisâ—es to Robert Rigges Iohn Puruey Henry Crompe Iohn of Chlum Iohn Scut William Havvlam Richard VVich Iohn Hus alias Iohn Goose the Hussites and Thaborites of Bohemia and such other vvho as they tel vs vvere glorious pillers doctors and maintainers of their church and Protestant-gospel and like glistering starres shined in the face of the ChristiaÌ„ world And that I tye him not to particular meÌ„ or one only prouince of Bohemia in many other prouinces and kingdomes of the world hath their church continued as most confidently writeth D. VVhitgift against T. C. who framing an argument against the Archbishops authoritie draweÌ„ from this supposition VVhat if the vvhole church be in one prouince or in one realme vvhich hath bene and is not vnpossible to be againe M. D. VVhit answereth it thus To your supposition if the vvhole church c. I say that if the skie fal you may catch larkes as the common prouerbe is making it as vnpossible a case to haue the church of Christ in one only kingdom as it is vnpossible for the skie to fal And presently in the same page Do you not knovv that the church of Christ is dispersed thorough the vvhole vvorld and can not novv after Christs ascension be shut vp in one kingdome much lesse in one prouince except you vvil become Donatistes He that is not vvilfully blinde may see in to vvhat straightes you are driueÌ„ vvhen you are constrained to vse such impossibilities for reasons And M. VV. in this booke telleth vs that there neuer wanted mightie
whether we or they loue vnaccustomed and monstruous noueltie of words we who striue so much as we may to retaine the auncient words left to vs by our Apostles and founders Masse Bishop Priest Baptisme Church the very names of meÌ„ Isaie Amos Iuda Hierusalem Ezechias Ozias or they who haue turned these in to the Supper or the Thankes-geuing Superintendent Minister or Elder VVashing Congregation who vpon most childish affectation to seeme somwhat skilful in the hebrew reduce al sacred names to the old Iudaical sound As for example one of their greatest Euangelists thus beginneth his translation of Esaie The vision of Iesaaiahu the sonne of Amoz vvhich he savv vpon Iehudah and vpon Hierusalam in the daies of Yziiahu Iotham Ahhaz Iehhizkiiahu Kinges of Iehudah And this is the common veyne of their preachers if they know a litle especially in that lanâ—â—nge as though Petrus Ioannes Iacobus Stephanus howsoeuer they be vttered in any other tonge Hebrew Greeke Latin Spanish FreÌ„ch or ItaliaÌ„ were not truly exactly expressed in English by Peter Iohn Iames Steuin but must needes be pronouÌ„ced as they are in the first laÌ„guage froÌ„ which originally they are deriued as though a maÌ„ translating some storie out of French or Spanish into English translated not wel if he said FrauÌ„cis the French King in his warres against the Spaniards but must needes say Fransois King of the Fransois in his warres against the Espanioulx or los EspanÌ„oles in such a victorie against los Franceses in steede of The Spaniards in such a victorie against the Frenchmen And why then do they not in the new testament vse like noueltie why for Christ vse they not Ieschua for our Lady MiriaÌ„ for S. Peter Cepha for S. Iohn Iochanan and so in the rest of the Apostles whereas they know that thus were they called in their proper language as at this preseÌ„t we see in S. Matthewes hebrevv Gospel If their ovvne eares abhor this wanton curiositie and their ovvne iudgment tel theÌ„ it is apish arrogancie peevish affectation of popular praise let them confesse the like in pronouncing Beltshazzar Nebucadnezzar Iehuda Iehhizkiiahu for Baltasar Nabugodonosor Iuda Ezechias for the case is al one Much more haue they committed this monstruous noueltie in the things them selues in taking away the sacrifice of the new testament like the forerunners of Antichrist in yelding to women and children the headship and supreme gouernement of the Church in al Ecclesiastical spiritual matters in abrogating fiue or six sacramentes of seauen in deuising such a kind of faith as before their time was neuer heard of and is more fit for the schole of Epicure then of Christ and so forth in the rest of their negatiue irreligion And as for mocking and contemning the word of God this was neuer so proper peculiar to any heretikes before as it is to them For who are they that mocke at the booke of Iudith that compare the booke of Machabees to Robin Hoode or Beauis of Hampton that cal the Prophete Baruch a peeuish ape of Ieremie Simia est non admodum saeâ—ix Ieremiae that accounte the epistle to the Hebrewes Pro stipulis as stubble that reiecte S. Iames epistle as made of stravve that contemne S. Lukes gospel that mangle many other partes of the scriptures and thereby teach the contempt of them al al standing vpoÌ„ like ground Who doe this VVe or they Catholikes or Gospellers to speake briefly what is their whole maner of writing preaching teaching and liuing but a very mockerie of the gospel of Christ such filthie application of holy write as sheweth them to vse it for no other purpose but for colour and shrowd of their filthines Rebuke a leacherous monke for his incest which he calleth Matrimonie ô saith he Better it is to mary then to burne Require of him that he chastise his body with fasting and discipline for repressing of his beastly concupisceÌ„ce that is against Gods word saith he For nemo carnem suam odio habuit No man hateth his ovvne flesh but loueth cherisheth it when such an Apostata is promoted amongst you to be a superintendeÌ„t and then spoileth his tenants wasteth his woods pulleth downe his housâ—â—â— neuer built by him or for him or any of his religion selleth away lead tile stone and maketh mony of al reproue him for this oppression and rauin he hath his text ready He that prouideth not for his ovvne and namely for them of his hovvsehold he is vvorse then an Infidel These interpretations vvorse then these very many shal you finde in Peter Martyrs booke De votis et caelibatu And at this present what is the vniuersal preaching of the ministers for the most part but a very mockery ridiculous abuse of scripture what other is their coÌ„mon writing and M.VV. in the next chapt wil shew himself in this kinde as very a scorner as the worst And whereas after al this he saith Truely so far of is it that I thinke your translatioÌ„ vvil any vvayes harme our cause that I vvish the copies thereof vvere multiplied and other men might be partakers thereof This is as fowle a figure of hypocrisie as any hitherto touched For if they thinke it wil no wayes hinder their cause but rather benefite it why make they such busie inquirie after it why burne they such as fal in to their hands are they such witles babes as â—ain not suffer that which doth them good CoÌ„pare good reader their doinges their preachings their searchings inquiries with this speach and thou shal sensibly perceaue that it is nought els but a very desperat facing out of a lye and setting a bold countenance on that which in deede pincheth them at the very hart roote With like phrase character of shamelesse vauÌ„ting wrote M. Iewel to D. Harding vve neuer suppressed any of your books M. Harding as you knovve but are very vvel content to see them so common that as novv children may play vvith them in the streetes Thus his face serued him to write then when in the self same Defence he suppressed by leauing out the very substance of that booke which he then pretended to answere when by helpe of his felow-Superintendents and other frends euery corner of the realme was searched for those bookes when the portes were layed for them Paules crosse is witnes of burning many of them the Princes proclamation was procured against them in the Vniuersities by soueraigne authoritie Colleges chambers studies closets coffers and deskes were ransackt for them when not only children were forbid to play with them but auncient mâ—â—â— and students of Diuinitie were imprisoned for hauing of them So that al this can be nought els but a plaine example of palpable dissimulation affected lying Ad populum phaleras when intrinsecally they feare and labour and sweate and by exterior signes declare thus much and
that she vvil in short time leaue this zeale in preaching the Catholike religion and thereby that your congregatiō shal gather strength and stabilitie and vvise men vvil fal in good liking thereof then your ignorance is great vvho knovv nether the nature of our Catholike Church religiō nor of your ovvne heretical faith and congregation Not of ours because you may learne or remember that from Christs time hitherto nether by persecuting Emperours nor by vndermining heretikes othervvise qualified thē are the Lutherās or Zuinglians of these days it vvas or could euer be subuerted but rather the more it vvas assaulted the better irresisted the more it vvas gainsaid the more it florished vvhē suttle heretikes vpō temporal fauour vvere most insolent then she most excellently did defende her self Examples you haue of the times of S. Augustine against Pelagius the Manichees S. Hierō against Iovinian and Vigilantius Lanfrancus against Berengarius and al the Primitiue church against Constantius Valēs and Arrius Ignorant you are of your ovvne faith and gospel because you may remember that nether had it euer any stay or stabilitie since it vvas first begotten nether can it haue so longe as it endureth the very pillers vvhich vnder proppe it being such rottē matter as of it self quickly corrupteth falleth in to dust For when in king Henries raigne it first set foote in our realme vpon occasions which I am content to passe ouer though M. Fox to the euerlasting shame both of such a gospel and such gospellers haue recorded them and committed them to eternal memorie hovv variable a state it had your elders know he much complaineth Euē as the kinge vvas ruled saith he gaue care sometime to one sometime to an other so one vvhile religion vvent forvvard at an other season as much backvvard againe sometime cleane altered and chaūged for a season as they could preuaile vvhich vvere about the kinge So long as Q. Anne liued the gospel had indifferent good successe And not only Queenes but very meane gētlemen and doctors of phisicke were then able to craze your gospel and set it backward or forward as pleased them For so much also is recorded in M. Foxes storie in the ende of king Henries life Thus writeth he So long as Quene Anne L. Cromvvel B. Cranmer M. Denny D. Buts vvith such like vvere about the King and could preuayle vvith him vvhat organe of Christes glorie did more good in the church thē he Againe vvhen sinister vvicked counsel had gotten once the foote in thrusting truth veritie out of the princes eares hovv much as religion and al good things vvent forvvard before so much on the contrary side al reuolted backvvard againe And this gospel as M. Fox calleth it which King Henrie left established as he thought most assuredly by Acte of Parlament in his sonne King Edwards daies went cleane vpside doune In Q. Maries daies came a new alteration vnder the Q. Maiestie that now is an other cleane contrarie And at this present finde you not a general murmuring euen amongst the Protestants against the Communion booke and state of religion which in the beginning of hir Maiesties raigne was brought in If the Catholikes said nothing haue you not the Puritans most eagerly detesting your faith and were it not for the Princes sword like to dispossesse you of chayrs and churches And what stabilitie can that gospel haue which altogether dependeth of the good allovvance of the Prince and her councel in Parlament which we know within these fiftie yeres so often to gaine said one an other And if it should please God to turne the Quenes hart to the catholike faith for which we incessantly pray vvere not the face of your religiō streightvvaies altered turned quite vpside downe must nor the inferiour partes of the body turne and frame them selues according to the head would not the same statutes which now are vniustly executed vpon Catholikes without alteration of any one word be much more iustly executed vpon the Ministers Superintendents if so be they called her Maiesty Scismatike or Heretike Wherefore litle reason haue you to imagine that wisemen wil fall in liking of your new deuised fansie which as it altogether dependeth vpon the Fauour of Court and Courtiers so for this very reason must needes euer remaine as chaungeable as the Court and Courtly beneuolence is And your father Luther who best knew the nature of his children and qualitie of your religion geueth such a sentence of it as I doubt not at this present is allowed of al the wisest of our Realme and much confirmed by your maner of writing The arguments and reasonings of the sacramentaries saith he are such vaine vvordes vvithout witte that I can not maruaile sufficiently hovv learned men can be moued vvith such lyes truly they do their matters vvith so fearful a conscience that they seeme to vvish they had neuer taken them in hand Equidē opinor si eis esset potestas de integro cōsulēdi quòd nūquam inciperent Verily I suppose if they vvere to consulte of the matter a fresh they vvould neuer begin their sacramētarie heresie And I verely suppose if the wise gouernours of our Realme who now may see the issue of your gospel what wickednes and iniquitie in lyfe confusion and Atheisme in faith contempt of God and man it hath brought with it if they were now to consult of the matter a fresh I beleeue verily with your father Martin Luther that amongst al heresies of name at this time currant in the Christiā world they would least of al haue admitted yours as being the most grosse most licentious and most vnprobable of al others But come we to the particular faultes historical committed by vs. Things alvvays accompted false or suspected vve set forth as most true articles of the Romane religiō as that the vvise mē vvhich came from the East vvere 3 kinges and had such names That S. Iohn Baptist vvas father of monkes That a stone vvith vvhich Steuen vvas stoned to death is reserued at Ancona c. Before I come to make āswere I wish the reader to carie in remembrance first the greatnes of his accusation against vs That neuer any thing came forth in print More contaminate then these annotations That vve haue shevved herein great desperatenes and importunitie That things alvvays accōpted false or suspected vve affirme as most true articles of the Romane religion c. Then what we promised in these ānotations Touching which in the preface of the new testament thus we write In these annotations vve shevv the studious reader the Apostolike tradition the expositions of the holy fathers the decrees of the Catholike church and most auncient Councels vvhich meanes vvho so euer trusteth not for the sense of holy scriptures but had rather folovv his priuate iudgment or the arrogant spirit of these Sectaries he shal
vvorthely through his owne vvilfulnes be deceaued Now vvhether part fayleth in perfourmance of that vvhich it vndertaketh vvhether vve geue not The sense of holy scriptures according to the Apostolike tradition the expositions of holy fathers or vvhether he conuince vs of Desperatnes and importunitie and such contamination as he threatneth this is that vvhich the reader concerning ether side hath ro note and consider Of the vvise men thus vve say These three sages being principal men of their countrie represent the vvhole state of Princes Kinges and Emperours that vvere according to the prophecies of Dauid and Esay to beleeue in Christ to humble them selues to his crosse to foster enrich adorne and defend his church vvhere vpon it is also a very conuenient and agreable tradition of antiquitie and a receiued opinion among the faithful not lacking testimonies of auncient vvriters and much for the honor of our Sauiour that these three also vvere Kings to vvit ether according to the state of those countries vvhere the princes vvere Magi Magi the greatest about the prince or as vve reade in the scriptures of Melchisedech King of Salem many other Kings that dvvelt vvithin a smal compasse or as Iobes three frendes are called Kings These are commonly called the three Kings of Colen because their bodies are there translated thither from the East countrie Their names are said to haue bene Gaspar Melchior Baltasar In these wordes thou seest reader vpon what ground and with what moderation we speake of that matter not precisely auouching them to be Kinges in such sort as we commoÌ„ly esteeme of that name but after an other sort and some inferiour degree Albeit if we affirmed them to be as great monarkes as the Kinges of Fraunce or Spaine or the great Sophie of Persia we might so affirme for ought he bringeth to the contrarie But because M. W. maketh his first entrance with this matter as though it were so absurd let vs search out wherein lieth the great absurditie and fault committed in this note Is it trowe you in that we cal them Kinges or in that we saie they were three or in that by our reporte their names are sayd to haue bene such If because of the first let him shew his reason why that can be so harmeful what it maketh against the honor of Christ what against the veritie of the scriptures the faith of the church tradition ecclesiastical the maners of meÌ„ or any title point or dependence of Christianitie and Christian profession The like I affirme of the second the like of the thirde the like of al three ioyned together VVe cal them kinges and why not seyng the scripture wel beareth with that appellation and the auncient fathers haue so called them many hundred yeres before vve vvere borne So Tertullian in his 3. booke against Marcion calleth them so S. Cyprian calleth them in his sermon De baptismo et manifestatione Christi And S. Chrysostom proueth by scripture that they vvere kinges thus he writeth The vvisemen offered giftes to this child Christ according as the holy Ghost had testified before of them saing Esai 60. They shal come from Saba offering gold and frankencense pretious stone VVe acknovvledge that the vvise men euidently fulfilled this prophecy Dauid quoque de his ita testatur psal 71. Reges Thaersis et Insulae munera offerent Reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent Dauid also vvitnesseth of these psal 71. The kinges of Thaersis and the Isles shal offer gifts The kinges of the Arabians and Saba shal bring presents And S. Hierom applieth that text of the psalme to them in like maner And Tertullian against the Ievves vvho seemed vvith M. W. to enuie al this honor of Christ vvriteth thus Dauid also spake of this offring of gold vvhen he sayd ps 71. there shal be geuen to him of the gold of Arabia and againe the kinges of Arabia and Saba shal bring him gifts Nam et magos reges serè habuit Oriens For the East part had commonly such vvise men for their kinges S. Augustin plainely nameth them kinges so doth Claudianus so doth S. Isidorus so doth S. Remigius so doth Theopâ—ilactus so do generally the writers that haue liued in the church this later 500 yeres as we learne by S. Anselme who speaketh De istis tribus regibus Of these three kinges as of a thing most vsual vulgar And Conradus Gesnerus directeth you to certaine writers who haue made treatises De tribus Magis De tribus sanctis regibus Of these three vvise men Of these three holy kinges And among these auncient and Catholike fathers to alleage one new Zuinglius holdeth it as very probable that they were kinges Thus he speaketh of them writing vpon the 2 chapter of S. Matthew Magi saith he sunt sapientes et astrorum et omnium rerum peritissimi huiusmodi homines ferè administrationi rerum publicarum adhibuerunt gentiles Magi are vvisemen skilful in astronomy and al other matters The gentiles made such men commonly gouerners of their common vvelthes After al which for vs to cal them kings how can it in any sort be hurtful or preiudicial to any truth of Christian religioÌ„ Nay on the contrarie side whosoeuer carpeth at this certainely he maligneth the glorie of our Sauiour he secretly detracteth from his honor and malitiously pincheth and snarleth at the auncient and Apostolike church which in this sorte witnessed such prophecies to haue bene fulfilled But perhaps M. W. is offended at the number of three vvhere vpon S. Augustine so sweetely alludeth vnto the mystery of the Blessed Trinitie and that Christe was King God and yet should dye as a mortal man This is that great corruption which so greueth him But who would be greued here at except some detestable Arian Trinitarian Libertine or Anabaptist against whose religion only for ought I know that note maketh And touching the story that they were three S. Austin plainely affirmeth it Tres erant So saith S. Leo the Great and first of that name aboue a dozen times in his sermons vpon the feast of the Epiphanie And whereas the EuaÌ„gelist speaketh of them not in the dual but in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fewer they could not well be and more we neede not to beleeue except we see more reason theÌ„ yet appeareth And touching the last part vz Their names are said to haue bene such how could vve haue spoken more moderatly For who hath heard them called by any other names And I suppose they were not namelesse And if they had names why not Gaspar Melchior Baltazar rather then William Iohn and Thomas or any other that M. W. list to imagine whereas the common opinion of our forefathers maketh for the first no probabilitie or reason can be brought for the second And if M. VV. beleeue that the Ievvish Sinagoge erred not in continuing by
before it rise againe vvith such fruit and commoditie as vve see so is it in the resurrection of our flesh In al which arguments there is no one that conuniceth necessarily no not that which is the principal Christ is risen therefore vve shal rise because true it is wel might Christ rise though we neuer rise as he truely was crucified and descended into hel as we by Gods grace shal neuer But the veritie of this pointe being first planted in the harts of Christian men by Christs teaching and doctrine then afterwardes these reasons are good motiues to declare that the resurrection standeth wel with Gods prouideÌ„ce his iustice his mercy his other workes in creating or redeeming of the world The like is to be said of that wherewith M.W. maketh most sport I meane the real presence which if any man would directly proue by one of M.W. arguments as Christ vvas transfigured Ergo he geueth vs his body in bread vvine he maketh as blynd an argumeÌ„t as did a famous English preacher vvho in great sadnes would proue the English CoÌ„munion booke to be good because in our Creede we are bound to beleeue not the Masse but The communion of Saintes Or as did an other of like vocation then a preacher afterwardâ— a Doctor vvho felt him self much troubled in conscience and almost perswaded that the masse was found in many places of scripture because in many subscriptions of S. Paules epistles he found written Missa est Corintho Missa est Philippis Missa est Roma Missa est Athenis Missa est Nicopoli But no Catholike man was euer so mad as from Christs transfiguration to deduce such an Ergo and absolutely as vvel he might infer ergo he is in euery cheste in euery chamber in euery tree in euery mountaine in euery peece of bread in the vvorld But thus to â—angle is for Lucianes hickscorners it is not for Diuines Thus far only we applye such reasons First grounding our faith simply vpon our Sauiours wordes declared by the vniforme consent of three Euangelists S. Paule and interpreted by the vniversal consent of Christs Catholike church in al times and ages because we find certaine carnal and fleshly meÌ„ lead by reason and sense and humane conceite offended at this article vpon pretence of philosophical rules of natural qualities of mathematical dimeÌ„sions as we see by M.VV. we supposing that they be not plaine Atheists wherein perhaps sometimes we are much deceaued for D. Whitegift telleth vs that the English Church is novv full of such by declaration and comparison of other things which they professe to holde and beleeue shew them that this is not so vnpossible or so vncredible or so vnlikely as they preteÌ„d whereas some other points they retaine as far aboue reason as this And thus far forth we applye Christs transfiguration Christs walking vpon the waters his entring vnto his disciples the dores being shut c. to declare that his body is not bound to those general rules which nature and reason hath appointed to common bodies and on vvhich is founded the greatest part of the Zuinglian Diuinitie And therefore as in the first if a man would haue brought Christs or S. Paules reasons to M. VVhitakers ergo as thus God is omnipotent Ergo the dead shal rise God is the God of Abraham of Isaac and Iacob Ergo the dead shal rise Christ is risen againe Ergo the dead shal rise The Apostles were not miserable fooles Ergo the dead shal rise Their preaching was not in vaine Ergo the dead shal rise The husband man soweth corne and it dieth before it bringeth forth fruite Ergo the dead shal rise As I say any man framing these arguments of Christs and S. Paules wordes were he an Ethnike had plaied the ignorant foole if he bare the name of a Christian had plaid the part of a wicked caytife and an Atheist because true it is euery article of our faith is in this sort subiect to scorne and irrision so M. W. in this case folowing the like example must needes before God and man sustaine a hard iudgement And therefore if he shal be disposed hereafter to write more bookes I would wish him to leaue this apish tricke which he hath learned of M. Iewel who notwithstanding got smal honour thereby and surely if the matter were correspondent such kinde of iesting would better become some merie felow making sport vpon a stage with a furred hood a wooddeÌ„ dagger theÌ„ either a learned bishop such as M. Iewel tooke him selfe to be or a profound Reader of diuinitie as I thinke M.W. would gladly be accounted And whereas next he saith Quando has nouorum magistrorum c. vvhen vvise men shal heare these interpretations arguments of these nevv maisters if there be left in them any sense I vvil not say of the holy Ghost but of common iudgment they can not thinke a religion builded vpon these grounds to be firme assured and better then al other I answere first that he much deceaueth him selfe when he calleth these the interpretations of new maisters as he doth likewise after in his Antichristian booke where he saith Nouâ— Theologi Rhemenses c. The nevv Diuines of Rhemes teach that the bishops blessing taketh avvay venial sinnes where as we speake not so of our selues but vpon warrant of an old Diuine of Milan euen S. Ambrose whom there we cite And here excepting the places where we vrge the very text of the Euangelist euery one of the other is the interpretation of old and auncient fathers of S. Epiphanius S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Austin S. Chrysostom S. Siluester c. And if these be new maisters I maruel who be old be like M. Iewel M. Horne M. Fulke M. Keltridge M. Charke and such vvorthie doctors of your old congregation vvhich novv grovveth vvel to fiftie yeres standing if I misrecken not my selfe For M. D. Haddon a fevv yeres sithence in his ansvver to Osorius made greate vaunt that then your gospel had continued aboue thirtie yeres abating from that count 6 yeres Annos plusquam triginta excepto sexennii turbulentissime tempore And therefore belike novv it is come to a goodly and a reuerend antiquitie But as auncient as it is many a good man liueth who knew when it was not begotten and may liue ful wel til it be againe dead and rotten Then vvhereas you affâ—rme our religion to be built vpon these grounds you folovv but the coÌ„mon vâ—yne of your felowes that is to belye vs sauing that you haue gotten perhaps a deeper habite therein thorough to much imitation of M. Iewel In this very kinde S. Austin complaineth that he was much iniuried by the heretikes of his time so doth Luther that he vvas vexed by the heretikes of his age vvhose authoritie I had rather vse to you then S. Austins because you seeme to honour him more esteeme him
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.